Synthetic Vs. Organic: Not So Black And White

[Bulldog11]

How many people tend to forget the chemical changing in organics and even micro life to make up the Carbon cycle ..
Organics is like a religion pick one ??? but before which one is true,, or which one have you been brainwashed to believe is true

Why did you need to hate on religious people before you made your post? :mad: Not cool, and caused me to ignore the rest of your post. I don't care to read about hate when we are having a good conversation about how we feed our plants. I was offended.

 

[hiiipower]

The conversation can be had, because the parameters have been set.

@shemshemet

"Organic is widely perceived to be of natural origin, yet organic compounds can be
synthesized, often with characteristics superior to those which are natural. Organic is the
chemistry of carbon, not the chemistry of natural. An organic compound that occurs
naturally in urine, urea (NH2)2CO, was first synthesized from inorganic components in 1828
by Fredrich Wohler. His work disproved the theory that organic compounds could only be
synthesized in living organisms through a vital “life force,” a mystic philosophy known as
Vitalism."
Read the link you'll more fully understand. (Sorry to those following for being repetitive)

I really appreciate all the great info on environmental impact that has been displayed, really good! But let's not lose sight of this discussion. We do not need to debate pesticides(eluded to earlier in thread, they can appear on both but aren't inherent to either), or debate which is more eco friendly(again earlier in thread, both can lead to environmental devastation, but is not inherent to either). This is a theoretical conversation about whether or not plants care about the difference between the chemicals that are being supplied to make it grow. A side by side comparison would not be helpful in deciding this(unless you could do it on a massive scale, with a huge amount of plant varieties, using an outrageous variety of fertilizers, in exactly the same conditions, then measure nutrition/health benefits of products).

I respect everyone's personal growing methods, I just want to point this out in an attempt to keep our lively conversation from getting off point. Unfortunately atm I have no further input on the chemical difference of chemicals. My knowledge is limited, and I really don't know where to turn on this matter(other than reading a few chemistry textbooks which I certainly don't have time for). I will keep researching. Thanks to everyone who's contributed to help get this far. I really think a chemist would help straighten this matter out a lot. Again, let's try to keep focused on the science of nutrients!

 

[SpitXFire]

My whole point is this, if you looking strictly towards product quality, yield and time-frame as parameters, you need to do a cost benefit analysis. I would surmise if those are your only goals, it would do the grower well to look towards conventional farming methods. There is a reason those who run large farms do what they do, when the cost of the good is driven down with razor thin margins. They spend billions on r&d, I would hope they have they science down pat. Now if the reasons are otherwise then it becomes a bit murky

 

[shemshemet]

@hiiipower

Even if you are setting the parameters at organic chemicals vs synthetic chemicals:

Are you talking about organic chemicals vs synthetic organic chemicals?
or organic chemicals vs all the synthetic chemicals except for synthetic organic chemicals?
or organic chemicals vs all synthetic chemicals?

Now you're almost loading the question...

I think what most people find important about "organic" are all the factors you are saying are irrelevant. I don't think the points that are given to organic growing have anything to do with the form of chemical the plants get nutrition. Organic gets its points and better quality through a healthy diversity of soil life, and personally I believe secondary plant metabolites in the rhizosphere are one of the most important aspects of quality.

If your only question is organic chemicals vs synthetic chemicals....I'm pretty sure it's been proved that there is no difference.

 

[shemshemet]

My whole point is this, if you looking strictly towards product quality, yield and time-frame as parameters, you need to do a cost benefit analysis. I would surmise if those are your only goals, it would do the grower well to look towards conventional farming methods. There is a reason those who run large farms do what they do, when the cost of the good is driven down with razor thin margins. They spend billions on r&d, I would hope they have they science down pat. Now if the reasons are otherwise then it becomes a bit murky

Biggest problems with assuming conventional farming has a better cost analysis are government subsidies :)

 

[Seamaiden]

My whole point is this, if you looking strictly towards product quality, yield and time-frame as parameters, you need to do a cost benefit analysis. I would surmise if those are your only goals, it would do the grower well to look towards conventional farming methods. There is a reason those who run large farms do what they do, when the cost of the good is driven down with razor thin margins. They spend billions on r&d, I would hope they have they science down pat. Now if the reasons are otherwise then it becomes a bit murky

Ok, I've gotta bring something up here. Big ag, conventional ag, is to a very large degree subsidized. In other words, they get money from us to do their thing. So, how's that cost benefit analysis really gonna work here? To be certified organic you have to jump through a vast myriad of hoops, including providing a soil and water conservation plan. And then you get to pay (through the nose) to get that 1x/year certification, which must be updated annually. To be conventional, you've just gotta break ground.

 

[MrBelvedere]

I grew up in a rural area, pretty much every single commercial farmer grows organically because most of them are also growing chickens for Perdue or Tysons. In gigantic chicken warehouses. There are literally gigantic mountains of quano composting in the sun next to every chicken warehouse, probably weighing a few tons.

They use this to fertilize the fields, but there is so much of it lots of it ends up in the hundreds of tributaries flowing into the Chesapeake Bay. All the excess guano just sits in mountains and when it rains it all leeches into the land and streams. This has added so much nitrogen and phosphorous to the Chesapeake Bay that it has destroyed the fragile marine ecosystem.

Generations of Watermen used to make a great living catching crabs, clams, and oysters. All that is nearly gone. The mixture of fresh and salt water in the bay made it an incredible honeyhole for crabs and oysters.

I remember before the commercial chicken farming began, watermen would catch so many crabs we would come home and there would be 3 or 4 BUSHELS of live crabs on our porch. Partytime!


http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/features/green/2010/06/perdue_manure_recycling_a_fig.html



"It’s simple: If a farmer uses chicken manure as fertilizer, he or she must apply the right amount to his or her fields. In November, Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) proposed regulations to do just that."

 

[SpitXFire]

Ok, I've gotta bring something up here. Big ag, conventional ag, is to a very large degree subsidized. In other words, they get money from us to do their thing. So, how's that cost benefit analysis really gonna work here? To be certified organic you have to jump through a vast myriad of hoops, including providing a soil and water conservation plan. And then you get to pay (through the nose) to get that 1x/year certification, which must be updated annually. To be conventional, you've just gotta break ground.

Absolutely correct current ag industry AFAIK is heavily heavily subsidized, but forgive if I'm wrong but aren't the crops subsidized and not the farm itself(not including drought years, tax credits for bad years, crop failures, etc) so organic farmers are also subsidized if I'm not mistaken, and in some cases they get extra subsidies to offset the cost of permits,inspection, etc. Once again not extremely well versed in agribusiness only info I got from shadowing my pathology prof at a sugarcane field, but due to the crop being subsidized and not the production, then subsidizing shouldn't figure into production costs? I agree the margins shouldn't be figured however bc of subsidies.

 

[shemshemet]

The only problem is that preference is given to big corn fields and soybean. I don't know the exacts, but organic farms get a very small portion of the total subsidies given. Small farms get even less.

So you can figure it into costs, but you're talking about the difference of personally starting a small farm and costs vs a huge company starting up massive acreage. S0 the cost analysis turns from something you can comprehend to billion dollar company accounting...

What I am saying is that cost analysis on the level of the huge farms along with subsidies is much much more complex because of the extreme dollar amounts. Common people cost analysis doesn't really work with the maneuvering the accountants have to pull.

Conventional farming I'm sure is much more cost effective with that much money involved, and I'd assume is has lots to with [1] subsidies, [2] chemical companies, [3] scale.

 

[Seamaiden]

Absolutely correct current ag industry AFAIK is heavily heavily subsidized, but forgive if I'm wrong but aren't the crops subsidized and not the farm itself(not including drought years, tax credits for bad years, crop failures, etc) so organic farmers are also subsidized if I'm not mistaken, and in some cases they get extra subsidies to offset the cost of permits,inspection, etc. Once again not extremely well versed in agribusiness only info I got from shadowing my pathology prof at a sugarcane field, but due to the crop being subsidized and not the production, then subsidizing shouldn't figure into production costs? I agree the margins shouldn't be figured however bc of subsidies.

Organic ag is not subsidized in the same way the commodity crops are. We're not paid to not grow crops, for example, nor are we guaranteed minimum pricing for those crops. There are programs available to help offset costs, such as for certification, but they are not extensive enough for many farmers to really be able to make use of them (using organic as the example). There are farmer loan programs that anyone can use, but again, this isn't the same as a subsidy that guarantees a certain amount of a given crop is grown.

Here's the other huge issue with that, and it's why I'm pretty much eating NO beef, and that is how the beef industry is both subsidized and riding on taxpayers, between the feed they use (corn & soy, two commodity crops that are *heavily* subsidized) and the BLM land they use to graze their animals before fattening them up in CAFOs on those subsidized crops. But, that is really another issue, so I apologize for the digression.

So, you worked a cane field? My grandfather used to run the family's sugarcane operation on Puerto Rico up until it crashed in the 70s.

 

[gardnguyahoy]

Whoa whoa whoa. Wait. Funding and expenses sure. But again i think were missing the point. I, personally am here to try and move forward with my knowledge as far as...what is natural. What isn't. What says organic but is still harmful. What is truly natural. What isnt. To find out if chemical fertilizers out there really aren't as bad as organic. Is there THAT big of a difference. Am i putting chemicals in my body if i use certain fertilizers. Are there natural fertilizers non organic, that are still, on a biological level. Safe to put in your body. I dont want carcinogens in my body, or of those whom i love around me. One day were all gonna die. Id like for that to NOT happen with disease and poison chillin in my body cause i smoked too many chemical joints.

This really, for me at least, is a knowledge endeavor about being health conscious. Now this might be a place for chem-growers to bash our supposed benefits. Which is fine. It's a discussion not a dictatorship. But all these things i read make me want to move forward.

Ive decided against guano since i heard what guano mining does to the enviorenment. I also heard scott from NFTG (nectar for the gods) say that these guano piles are piled with cockroaches who eat that shit then shit out that shit. I thought back to the planet earth episode about caves where there were gigantic piles of bat turds covered in cockroaches worms and gigantic centipedes. Disgusting. So all of you bat guano enthusiasts are actually cockroach guano enthusiasts.
Also that piece about peat moss and how theyre destroying enviorenments to get to it. So im turned off to pete moss.
Bash on organics more so i know what i wont personally support. Haha.

I guess what im trying to say is...am i really helping my body by attempting to farm organically. Am i wasting money going this route. Are there natural options that are even better for me? Are there chemical optiona that are biologically not bad for me?

That being said. Im not a cash crop fast as i can much as i can kind of grower. Sure i want a good sized crop but i dont want to pump my buds full of bad shit to get there. Im gonna focus on my personal crop of meds for myself and my loved ones. Natural. The way nature would approve. Even if the concoction i put together would never occur naturally i dont care. Thats not the point. The point is to only put what naturally occurs in thr world together in one spot to make my garden. Feel me.

 

[shemshemet]

@gardnguyahoy

Natural and organic are different things. Organic itself is not just one thing.

You can talk about organic, as in carbon based.
Or you can talk about organic, as in certified grown organic. This means that all the products and processes used to grow a crop are certified by the USDA (or whichever organization you're talking about).

By using "chemical ferts" this does not mean some mystery chemical is traveling through the plant and into your lungs when you smoke it. The chemicals used are plant available forms of elements plants need.

YES! Many organic fertilizers/amendments are NOT carbon based. Rock dust, gypsum, sul-po-mag, etc. Many of these can be certified organic, but none of them are carbon based.

Carcinogens are in so many different things, that switching your fertilizers is going to make practically no difference. Carcinogens occur in many many many natural products. Smoking the most natural wild grown cannabis is still going to give you just as much carcinogen exposure as hydroponic cannabis.

Before you think about going natural think about going local. See if you can't get locally produced fertilizers/amendments. Lots of by-products are great natural fertilizers. Blood and bone meal are just two examples. Neem seed meal is a by-product. Fish meal. Etc.

Reusing waste from the production of something is a great way to be environmentally conscious.

As far as organic food being healthier.....we humans have a VERY long way to go to be able to prove something like that. Food science is a very fluid topic. The reason being that to study nutrition, constant diets must be maintained. As well as a consistent life style. This is not practical over the long term. Therefore we do not have a good baseline to go off, and there are so many variables, it is difficult to prove a food healthy or not. Same issue with the medicinal value of cannabis and the entourage effect.

An example is this:
Lets say you want to get the nutrition of a tomato. Some scientist might say well I can give you all the nutrition from that tomato in a pill. Here is a pill with X amount of vitamin C and X amount of carbohydrates, etc. The problem is that the food scientist might have neglected the lycopene, and the other components of the tomato which have not yet been studied by nutritionists, and we may not have any idea of how lycopene interacts in the digestive system, and so we neglect lycopene & others when talking about the nutrition of a tomato. This is one way food science is flawed. Too many variables, not enough consistency.

 

[Wisher619]

@gardnguyahoy
What do you consider natural? If you are growing from seed then most likely those seeds were not produced with "Natural" ingredients and if clones then same applies...to me anything that the Earth produces is "Natural" Minerals, Metals, Heavy Metals, and anything that the earth's animals produce excluding themselves....which leaves shit....In my garden...I built my soil from Native Soil along with cow shit bird shit chicken shit bat shit and worm shit......wow that's a lot of shit....along with local compost from the wine industry and a serious load of Rock Dust and Azomite....like 3 bags per bed..then every year I drop a bag of worm casting that is harvested local on each bed and plant cover crops such as legumes. I harvest the legumes and then chop them down and let them lay as they are and plant right through....my garden goes crazy....with nothing additional since besides the worm shit..I built my beds 5 years ago and I havnt fertilized yet....the only other thing I do is inoculate the roots of my transplants with Mycrorhizae...endo & ecto....
I only water once in my beds and then they do what they do from there

I'm gonna have to add more compost at the end of they years as my soil level has dropped considerably since I built them

 

[SpitXFire]

@shemshemet and @Seamaiden thank you for enlightening me, I do agree the commodity crops shouldnt be so subsidized. If we were to change that today, I know for certain at least 75% of those crop growers would have to exit a collapsing market, the actual demand after you subtract the artificially inflated price would drive the prices down, as well as prove to the farmers they might not be as profitable as they thought(well that plus grains, soy, corn store extremely well). But i digress as well, guaranteed minimum pricing does botch what I was saying, but I think that given the parameters there are benefits towards synthetic methods and conventional farming methods. Now running organic has shown time and time again to be profitable, that why there are large organic farms that exist. The question it seems to me, is given all else being equal and we are only accounting for a few things (time to yield, time to market, quality of yield, actual yield, cost of inputs) can organics compete with synthetics. Are there any crops that are not subsidized and not localized that we can see the differences between the two?

EDIT: I'm meeting up with my brother in a few hours, he's a double major-math and econ and planning on working in agribusiness. I'm sure he can help us figure out the logistics/financials/costs of both. And yes ma'am i have worked a few cane fields in florida. Starting to regret my specialty field, after being in the sun 9 hours a day just specimen and data collection.

 

[SpitXFire]

Whoa whoa whoa. Wait. Funding and expenses sure. But again i think were missing the point. I, personally am here to try and move forward with my knowledge as far as...what is natural. What isn't. What says organic but is still harmful. What is truly natural. What isnt. To find out if chemical fertilizers out there really aren't as bad as organic. Is there THAT big of a difference. Am i putting chemicals in my body if i use certain fertilizers. Are there natural fertilizers non organic, that are still, on a biological level. Safe to put in your body. I dont want carcinogens in my body, or of those whom i love around me. One day were all gonna die. Id like for that to NOT happen with disease and poison chillin in my body cause i smoked too many chemical joints.

This really, for me at least, is a knowledge endeavor about being health conscious. Now this might be a place for chem-growers to bash our supposed benefits. Which is fine. It's a discussion not a dictatorship. But all these things i read make me want to move forward.

Ive decided against guano since i heard what guano mining does to the enviorenment. I also heard scott from NFTG (nectar for the gods) say that these guano piles are piled with cockroaches who eat that shit then shit out that shit. I thought back to the planet earth episode about caves where there were gigantic piles of bat turds covered in cockroaches worms and gigantic centipedes. Disgusting. So all of you bat guano enthusiasts are actually cockroach guano enthusiasts.
Also that piece about peat moss and how theyre destroying enviorenments to get to it. So im turned off to pete moss.
Bash on organics more so i know what i wont personally support. Haha.

I guess what im trying to say is...am i really helping my body by attempting to farm organically. Am i wasting money going this route. Are there natural options that are even better for me? Are there chemical optiona that are biologically not bad for me?

That being said. Im not a cash crop fast as i can much as i can kind of grower. Sure i want a good sized crop but i dont want to pump my buds full of bad shit to get there. Im gonna focus on my personal crop of meds for myself and my loved ones. Natural. The way nature would approve. Even if the concoction i put together would never occur naturally i dont care. Thats not the point. The point is to only put what naturally occurs in thr world together in one spot to make my garden. Feel me.

Well really, we're all missing the point, the OP was asking if the yield/cost of synthetics are comparable in reality to organics. Now I agree with you, i would wager a good 90% of people switching to organics are not doing for the same reason as OP's question but rather for the concerns you have.

I use synthetics, and I would say an ion is an ion given the medium and the rhizosphere interaction. I run in coco or hydroponic, unless outdoors where I used to utilize organics for soil sustainability. IMO it is not bashing at all, we are merely defending synthetics from misconception the growing community at large are now positing of synthetics. Well at least I am lol. Its yet to be determined definitively like @shemshemet stated, whether or not organic farming is better for you as far as what you're inputting into your body from what I read. I think the problem I'm gleaning from this post is however, is that you are appealing to nature as a good. When in reality its indifferent, sorry sounds harsh, but just as in man made applications there are tons bad for you in the natural world, arsenic, mercury, cyanide, etc. And absolutely I would say that there are chemicals that are safe for you( remember I think everything I use is fine). For instance to go on an earlier example do you think epsom salt is fine? All it is, is mag-sul, two commonly occuring elements. Derived from a natural source. And to go on my own example, potash? If you take wood ash and dissolve em into water you have potash, or it can be from a natural source( hot water pumped into mines, evaped off) both considered "chems" but as you can see, no real difference in sourcing than rock dusts, guanos, etc and other 'natural' substances.

 

[gardnguyahoy]

@SpitXFire. @shemshemet
I understand. Im really doing my best to keep up! Thank you so much for your responses and patience...

I understand that nature creates a lot of bad as well... My aim is to steer clear. Wether it be stamped organic, natural, or neither. Id support it if ot was proven to be healthy even though that's possibly impossible At this point as stated earlier. y, enviorenmentally friendly is a plus, its fucked up to jack up an eco system like someone earlier was stating about chicken farming and the chesapeake bay, and turn around and call it organic...So fuck those people! >:0
F'in up the enviorenment and stamping it organic is twisted as hell!

So, how do i, as a personal med (and food and vegetable) farmer find my ground in this eco-friendly/unfriendly, good for me / bad for me, organic/natural/chemical/chemnatural organic (haha) mess.

Im not just growing cannabis, i grow 15-20 varieties of fruit trees, i have multiple fruit and vegetable gardens. I do my best to make sure my kids arent getting poisoned every time we sit down at the fkn dinner table. This topic involves the health of my family, so im instantly facinated! Haha. That being said.. If organic vs. Chemical is not so black and white then me buying all organic nutrients and all organic seeds and organic medium for my bud plants. All that shit, isnt enough. So... At the risk of asking you guys to go off topic again, and possibly getting shot down and told to open up a new thread..... What IS enough IYO?

 

[DrFever]

Why did you need to hate on religious people before you made your post? :mad: Not cool, and caused me to ignore the rest of your post. I don't care to read about hate when we are having a good conversation about how we feed our plants. I was offended.

first of all lets not get religion into this thread or i should say don't get me started lol i am sorry if i offended you was not intended but if you really put the 2 together its pretty much the same people believing that its better or in this that its safer more environmentally friendly etc etc

Garden guy you live in a city ??? if so then pretty sure your kids are being poisoned just by breathing .
So get your head out of your ass
But the idea that organic foods are healthier isn't even the largest myth out there. That title belongs to the widely held belief that organic farming does not use pesticides. A 2010 poll found that 69% of consumers believe that to be true. Among those who regularly purchase organic food, the notion is even more prevalent. A survey from the Soil Association found that as many as 95% of organic consumers in the UK buy organic to "avoid pesticides."

In fact, organic farmers do use pesticides. The only difference is that they're "natural" instead of "synthetic." At face value, the labels make it sound like the products they describe are worlds apart, but they aren't. A pesticide, whether it's natural or not, is a chemical with the purpose of killing insects (or warding off animals, or destroying weeds, or mitigating any other kind of pest, as our watchful commenters have correctly pointed out). Sadly, however, "natural" pesticides aren't as effective, so organic farmers actually end up using more of them!*

Moreover, we actually know less about the effects of "natural" pesticides. Conventional "synthetic" pesticides are highly regulated and have been for some time. We know that any remaining pesticide residues on both conventional and organic produce aren't harmful to consumers. But, writes agricultural technologist Steve Savage, "we still have no real data about the most likely pesticide residues that occur on organic crops and we are unlikely to get any."

Scientists can examine pesticides before they are sprayed on fields, however. And what do these analyses show?

"Organic pesticides that are studied have been found to be as toxic as synthetic pesticides," Steven Novella, president and co-founder of the New England Skeptical Society, recently wrote.

Organic foods are no safer than conventional foods. Even Katherine DiMatteo, executive director of the Organic Trade Association (OTA), recognizes this as fact. An “organic label does not promise a necessarily safer product," she once remarked (PDF).

So why are the misconceptions so pervasive? According to an in-depth report by Academics Review, a group founded by University of Illinois nutritional scientist Bruce M. Chassy and University of Melbourne food scientist David Tribe, the organic and natural-products industry -- which is worth an estimated $63 billion worldwide -- has engaged in a "pattern of research-informed and intentionally-deceptive marketing and advocacy related practices with the implied use and approval of the U.S. government endorsed USDA Organic Seal." Like their succulent fruits and scrumptious vegetables that we eat, the organic industry has given consumers a nibble of untruth and a taste of fear, and have allowed misunderstanding to sow and spread while they reap the benefits.

 

[gardnguyahoy]

first of all lets not get religion into this thread or i should say don't get me started lol i am sorry if i offended you was not intended but if you really put the 2 together its pretty much the same people believing that its better or in this that its safer more environmentally friendly etc etc

Garden guy you live in a city ??? if so then pretty sure your kids are being poisoned just by breathing .
So get your head out of your ass
But the idea that organic foods are healthier isn't even the largest myth out there. That title belongs to the widely held belief that organic farming does not use pesticides. A 2010 poll found that 69% of consumers believe that to be true. Among those who regularly purchase organic food, the notion is even more prevalent. A survey from the Soil Association found that as many as 95% of organic consumers in the UK buy organic to "avoid pesticides."

In fact, organic farmers do use pesticides. The oncat they're "natural" instead of "synthetic." At face value, the labels make it sound like the products they describe are worlds apart, but they aren't. A pesticide, whether it's natural or not, is a chemical with the purpose of killing insects (or warding off animals, or destroying weeds, or mitigating any other kind of pest, as our watchful commenters have correctly pointed out). Sadly, however, "natural" pesticides aren't as effective, so organic farmers actually end up using more of them!*

Moreover, we actually know less about the effects of "natural" pesticides. Conventional "synthetic" pesticides are highly regulated and have been for some time. We know that any remaining pesticide residues on both conventional and organic produce aren't harmful to consumers. But, writes agricultural technologist Steve Savage, "we still have no real data about the most likely pesticide residues that occur on organic crops and we are unlikely to get any."

Scientists can examine pesticides before they are sprayed on fields, however. And what do these analyses show?

"Organic pesticides that are studied have been found to be as toxic as synthetic pesticides," Steven Novella, president and co-founder of the New England Skeptical Society, recently wrote.

Organic foods are no safer than conventional foods. Even Katherine DiMatteo, executive director of the Organic Trade Association (OTA), recognizes this as fact. An “organic label does not promise a necessarily safer product," she once remarked (PDF).

So why are the misconceptions so pervasive? According to an in-depth report by Academics Review, a group founded by University of Illinois nutritional scientist Bruce M. Chassy and University of Melbourne food scientist David Tribe, the organic and natural-products industry -- which is worth an estimated $63 billion worldwide -- has engaged in a "pattern of research-informed and intentionally-deceptive marketing and advocacy related practices with the implied use and approval of the U.S. government endorsed USDA Organic Seal." Like their succulent fruits and scrumptious vegetables that we eat, the organic industry has given consumers a nibble of untruth and a taste of fear, and have allowed misunderstanding to sow and spread while they reap the benefits.

Yeah dude, we get it. Organic pesticides are bad too. I read your piece on that earlier. No need to repeat yourself. And no, i don't live in the city, thanks for the concern.

 

[DrFever]

The bottom line is that if the US tried to produce today’s agriculture output with 1960s era technology, we would need on the order of 1 million square miles of additional farmland (assuming that the marginal productivity of the land decreases somewhat as you bring less productive ares into play). That’s a swath 1000 miles by 1000 miles. That’s about 1/3 the land area of the contiguous 48 states.

Replicate this calculation all over the world and you’d have massive deforestation and habitat destruction. Remember the unintended slashing and burning rainforests to plant oil palms for subsidized biodiesel? Now multiply that by 10. No thanks. in the real world organics has its place and thats in your little back yard period
And like i said earlier in one of my first posts nothing wrong with organic Gardening were using our waste veggies as compost life is good , for out door growing and free power from the sun ,,,
indoor where we tend to try to keep our rooms insect free,, Chem fed nutrients for faster growth and yields as power now is coming out of our pockets ..
i refuse to grow organics indoor, i use sterile mediums ,, i would bet your average organic Grower trying to do organics indoor with the soils out there have nothing but gnat , thrips , mites etc and threads show it :)
Just saying hell i grow organically out door and why the ease of just letting mother nature take care of her ,, only rain water goes on my plants i planted one in my compost bin haha she is being spread in 3.5 x 8 foot bin will post pics in a while she is nice Blue berry that is going to produce

 

[SpitXFire]

@SpitXFire. @shemshemet
I understand. Im really doing my best to keep up! Thank you so much for your responses and patience...

I understand that nature creates a lot of bad as well... My aim is to steer clear. Wether it be stamped organic, natural, or neither. Id support it if ot was proven to be healthy even though that's possibly impossible At this point as stated earlier. y, enviorenmentally friendly is a plus, its fucked up to jack up an eco system like someone earlier was stating about chicken farming and the chesapeake bay, and turn around and call it organic...So fuck those people! >:0
F'in up the enviorenment and stamping it organic is twisted as hell!

So, how do i, as a personal med (and food and vegetable) farmer find my ground in this eco-friendly/unfriendly, good for me / bad for me, organic/natural/chemical/chemnatural organic (haha) mess.

Im not just growing cannabis, i grow 15-20 varieties of fruit trees, i have multiple fruit and vegetable gardens. I do my best to make sure my kids arent getting poisoned every time we sit down at the fkn dinner table. This topic involves the health of my family, so im instantly facinated! Haha. That being said.. If organic vs. Chemical is not so black and white then me buying all organic nutrients and all organic seeds and organic medium for my bud plants. All that shit, isnt enough. So... At the risk of asking you guys to go off topic again, and possibly getting shot down and told to open up a new thread..... What IS enough IYO?

No problemo amigo, I enjoy a fresh conversation on a topic that's so widely debated, with science, Frank but for the most part respectful, and mostly open minded. You are making that possible, and I wish more in the organic community truly wanted to learn rather than stopping their education on something they hold close to them and feeling justified to look down on others.

I am not a professional scientist I just wanted to get that out there and I'm humbled you're willing to listen to me. But like you I'm just a student, just in a botany program at a uni lol, but still were both just students of those before us and the plant itself. Please don't take my word for the utmost authority and as a good student should, question and scrutinize everything.

But ok I'll try to tackle your question.