Synthetic Vs. Organic: Not So Black And White

[hiiipower]

I started off as an organic grower in a living organic soil amending w/ teas. I'm familiar w/ really great organic bud, and it never falls short of blowing me away. However, nowadays I'm getting interested in hydro, the rapid metabolism of the plants excites me. The more research I do, the difference between synthetics and organic is becoming more muddled, and I know that might sound backward, but to give you an idea of what I mean, read this article(takes 5-10 mins.)

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/natural-vs-synthetic-chemicals-is-a-gray-matter/
by Dorea Reeser

In the article she trys to dispell 3 myths:
1. Synthetic chemicals are more toxic than natural/organic ones.
2. Organic food is better for you because its natural.
3. Synthetic copies are not as good as natural chemicals.

It's kinda an in depth subject, more than I could do justice to explain on here, so reading the article would be way better. And if you really pick out the inidividual points she makes and research those as well, you'll see why my brain is becoming more muddled over this subject.

Also, has it ever occurred to anyone else that living organics(any version: supersoil, tlo...) might not precisely fall under the definition of "natural". I mean, where in nature does such perfectly amended soil exist. And where on earth does it rain the amazingly rich in bio-life teas that are applied in living organics that really make it worth the extra effort. Yeah, I'm sure in at least one place on earth soil that perfect does exist, but it's got to be seldom. No? Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't most of nature(wild) have not so great soil, and uses the vegetative litter each year(during fall/dry season) to recycle to the nutrients? Does anyone have any of worthwhile info on this or links to scientific studies or such. If you can prove this wrong please do, I'm always down for a good knowledge drop! I'm certainly not a scientist and don't pretend to be.

Not trying to debate which bud is better, organic or synthetic. Even if organic truly is better, maybe it's just because it's been doing it for a lot longer than humans, and we have some catching up to do. But maybe we'll catch up(really hard to doubt this with today's technology). Anyways, this article definitely shows this is a very muddled topic, but a really interesting one imo. What's your opinion(read the article first!)??

 

[hiiipower]

I guess maybe my point here is that... Maybe plants don't give shit where the nitrate nitrogen and all the other nutrients comes from, whether a fungi/bacteria breaks it down or a scientist in a lab does it. Eh?

 

[Seamaiden]

Ok, I don't really have time to dig deeply into her arguments, but I can tell you this, each and every professional registered dietitian I know (they are to nutritionists what a chiropractor is to an M.D/O.D., just to give you an idea of the education level) insists that the best way to get your needed nutrients is through the food you eat, not through pills. Why is that? The reasons are not yet fully known, but for someone like an RD they would include other issues like satiety as well as nutrient availability in the gut, and now we're learning that eating particular food combinations makes them even more nutritious.

And so, why can the same idea not be extrapolated? I find the original argument to be a bit specious, organic isn't better because it's natural. Organic is better for a vast myriad of reasons, not the least of which is its total sum impact on the very environment we absolutely rely on for life.

Now, bringing this back to the soil, I recently learned that the vast majority of horticultural "knowledge" seems to come from potted plants, not necessarily what's actually happening in the ground. In the same article I read that the main reason why we're learning about all the soil biology that we previously knew nothing of is due to DNA testing of the soil itself.

The idea that we can break the web and still be whole rings false for me. It may not be entirely scientifically valid at this time, but I feel strongly that may well change.

 

[MrBelvedere]

Just like every topic there are pros and cons to both sides. People will have great success using organic, people have great success using synthetics. And that's cool.

 

[hiiipower]

@ 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

 

[ShroomKing]

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.

 

[hiiipower]

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.

Doubt it please post a link to where that's been shown

 

[yooper420]

Very interesting thread. Will be following along.

 

[Seamaiden]

@ 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

Ah, right now the NOP (National Organic Program) is putting together a task force to address the issue and ideas of organic hydro/aquaponic cultivation. That water use is 100% why we ripped out soil veggie bed and replaced with a fish pond (I'll have more video to share soon).

That said, the vast majority of people simply do not understand the tenets and principles behind the organic certification program--to build healthy soils. That simply cannot be done by hydro or aquaponics, there *is* no soil plan there.

I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that there is little room left for conventional agriculture, which can only exist in its currently heavily subsidized form. Go read about what's been happening over in Cuba for the past 30 years and how they had to adapt to not being able to access those products used for conventional ag to start. Then move on to read about how Cuba has the Caribbean's ONLY pristine reefs. Why do you think that might be? No fishing? I'm sure Cubans fish, 100%. What else? No business traffic? Perhaps, but that's not the whole picture.

Contrast and compare their reefs to, say, Indonesia, then take a look at who's doing what. Logging, goldmining, and conventional agriculture on almost unimaginable scale are burgeoning in Indonesia, and their lagoons and reefs show the result.

My RD family and friends will tell you emphatically to get your nutrition through your foods, and only take those supplemental pills when required. You can try to get 100% of what your body needs by pills, but you'll experience other issues. Let me give you the example of Vitamin C. Sure, you can take it in a pill (or even a gummy! God I hate those things), or you can eat some tomatoes. In the pill you're getting Vit. C and some fillers. In the tomato you're getting Vit C, Vit A, calcium, iron, dietary fiber, sugars, proteins, and a whole suite of secondary plant metabolites that our nutrition data don't even really log (but should), such as lycopene. You could just also take a lycopene pill, I suppose, as well as protein, calcium, iron, and Vit A, but why not *just* eat the tomato?

 

[MrBelvedere]

http://www.highbrixgardens.com/nutrient-dense-foods.html

More articles and studies, I just googled for a second.... This one is just showing high brix affects the nutrient levels, etc.

 

[sixstring]

I have def always been interested in the 2 concepts,org vs chems.i mean the plant just wants npk from somewhere,they are not picky like people nor do they have a "gut" like @Seamaiden made mention lol . obviously pills cant compare to real food for humans,but what about powerbars,like quality granola bars ect?surely our scientists will come up with a source of food in powerbar form that will be as healthy as eating all the necessary foods we need no?
Chemical ferts are coming along pretty quickly imo,some companies are using food grade nutrients for there npk,so why wouldnt these nutes be just as good for the plants as organics?
It is def changing as time goes by.

 

[Seamaiden]

Plants, all life in fact, need 17 elemental building blocks. The idea that "all" a plant needs is NPK is an old idea. We're rapidly learning that there are things we cannot mimic, with specific regard to soil life. And, here's the thing (for me), if you already have all these little willing hamsters, why not use 'em?

Powerbars like a granola bar is still whole food. ;)

 

[GrowMaster]

My 2 cents, Proper nutrition is very important, and when a plant or human gets that nutrition is also very important, the types of nutrition dosent really matter to the plant or the human system, synthetic or organic both are GOOD, both together are even BETTER!, What really maters in both humans and in plants is whats in your GUTS for humans and whats in the root zone for plants, cause if you do not have the proper bacteria and micro organisms in your GUTS or the ROOT ZONE to break what your eating or feeding your plants down, to feed it to you like your body or a plant needs it to be, you or the plant will never be able to up take the full benefits of what your eating or feeding your plants.............GM

 

[leadsled]

Appears your article is by a chemist and maybe incomplete and muddled.

Good questions you ask. Especially the natural or organic definitions.

The other problem is the terms and defining organic or synthetic and only stopping there.


Think about. What is happening to the microbes, what is happening at a celluar level to the plant metabolism?

Or what is safe to the microbes and yet enhances plant health and nutrition?

Bad to lump all synthetic or organics together.

It is misinformation that all ions are the same.

A plant will either breakdown or build proteins. healthy plant builds protein, unhealthy plant breaks down protein.

This is the shift that determines a healthy plant or not.

Chemicals for synthetics are water soluble.
Chemicals frequently cause the plants to metabolically unbalanced.

The plant does not have unlimited energy to convert synthetic ions into forms they can use. When you feed with synthetics makes it very easy for there to be a buildup of soluble nutrients in the plant.
This can also make the plants weak and sick and then prone to attack by pests and diseases. Then people do and use more chemical fungicides and pesticides in a war mentality without understanding what is happening to the plants metabolism.

Let me try to illustrate with a metaphor.
A very small and momentary bottleneck on one of the lanes of a big expressway. Beyond the congestion, the traffic looks normal. So my plant may seem to be growing quite normally, but there is a congestion of amino-acids in the sap. This makes a plant delicious to pests and disease causing bacteria viruses and fungi!


The microbes in soil process the elements and assemble them into a form of microbial metabolites that plants use and can absorb without wasting additional energy. Therefore reducing the chance of a "bottleneck on the expressway"

In case it did not make sense the first time.

When plants can uptake the elements in a synthetic form as simple ions. Then they need attempt to reassemble them into the long chain compound that plants needs to get to higher levels of health.
The plant uses a lot of energy in this process and then can never get above the base level of health when fed with synthetics nutrients.

Only when you have the proper biology and chemistry working together with the plant can it perform like an athlete and achieve the highest levels of health.

That does not even get into transmutation.

In nature, most any element based on silicon can be transmutated into other elements needed.

p.s.
Plants do not have a gut. Plants form a symbiosis with the soil. The soil is equivalent to the gut which holds biology.

 

[leadsled]

Doubt it please post a link to where that's been shown

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

 

[leadsled]

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.

Doubt it please post a link to where that's been shown

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

 

[ShroomKing]

Doubt it please post a link to where that's been shown

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...ZDGAns&usg=AFQjCNG1YFyripxTqYOlp7cBIE-j8uAVZg

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...X_pBkU&usg=AFQjCNFEbOlN-FEW57Jd1z34EafmFc-Rhw

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...ku8LuA&usg=AFQjCNE9llyM9F2LGp_elQx9YCPEWv1rtw

 

[GrowMaster]

@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!!

 

[GrowMaster]

Also synthetic nuts are just man made copies of organic nutes!........GM

 

[420circuit]

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.