stutter
- 325
- 93
But there is so much more to growing than just yield and turnover.
I have seen the weed that mentality produces.
I have seen the weed that mentality produces.
Pretty sure if anyone did side by side vegged a plant 2 weeks organic one 1 syn same strain the syn would be double the size and litterlly double in yield one person uses teas or what ever foilar spray on other hand one uses chems on foilar spray still chem would win growth , size and yield of the plant its a no brainer and anyone trying to compare the 2 is full of shit chem will win
If anyone was to compare conventional farming to organic farming pretty much one sided who wins every time this also means same for here
this becomes preference really like my self i grow organic rain water only no hand watering true organics no teas no amendments just compost but when indoor besides everyone wanting bug free environment how many organic indoor growers you know with out gnats , root aphids or any other pest we see it all the time hence for indoor growing chem is the way to go in my world
Again do whats best for your situation
But there is so much more to growing than just yield and turnover.
I have seen the weed that mentality produces.
The work just isn't don't because no one cares how good the fruit is in agriculture. They care what it weighs and how pretty it looks.
In the field, the actual scientific field of human nutrition, that myth is being dispelled, quickly. One example of that is how we are learning that foods, and what foods, should be eaten in combination. Probiotics, anyone? Just go back to my very first post in this thread.So we mostly worry about yield in science. For lack of a better way to put it, it's all a bunch of speculation in organic vs synthetic.
The work just isn't don't because no one cares how good the fruit is in agriculture. They care what it weighs and how pretty it looks.
"To make wholesome, nutritious, tasty and safe foods, it is essential that food scientists pool their knowledge and resources together in a multidisciplinary approach. With approximately 15,000 scientists, employed by nearly 1,500 food related companies, the Netherlands is a center of the food formulating world. The Dutch government puts a high value on developing nutritious foods, as the country recognizes the impact that a poor diet has on health, and, as a consequence, public health care." .
"An estimate is that 70% of all the vegetables grown in the United States have Dutch genetics."
Excuse the nationalism... research into breeding and growing food is obviously a big thing here, and while I cannot derive any expertise from that myself, I do read a lot of research from said scientists and our agri uni and they never focus on yield alone. When it comes to yield the goal is always improving the yield without sacrificing quality in terms of nutrition value, looks, and taste. They measure kg/m2 (yield) but also things like sugar vitamin contents, and test for texture and taste rigorously. Whether it comes to using synth nutes or LED or alternative light schedules for example, they care about every aspect of the product, not just weight and looks.
In an ideal world perhaps. The problem the world is facing, however, is not a lack of qualitative great food but needing an ever increasing amount of it. Like you said, yield is one of the most important factors. That's not a choice based solely on wanting to fill pockets but to fill more mouths with food of the highest quality. Above all, synth nutes do not force a trade off between quantity and quality.I agree that yield is not the only thing being looked at. But I do believe yield is one of the most important factors. And you say the goal is improving the yield without sacrificing quality. Well I think what the argument to that is, and what the process should bear in mind: quality should be improved without sacrificing yield.
While breeding is the primary factor in improving yields over the past decades and more, and leaves a lot more room for improvement than nute types, breeding is not a cure-all for lower yields caused by organic growing.If the cause were low yielding crops, the fix would be to breed in higher yields.
Not 100% but close enough. Taste is here is tested at the here well known CSO ("centre for taste research") with large panel of people and in general quality of food is lot better quantified and measured than we do with cannabis. Taste is not just a matter of taste, quality is not entirely subjective either, it's chemistry.when quality is not a 100% perfect, objective, obtainable, tangible thing, some factors of quality might be pushed into the woodworks.
"To make wholesome, nutritious, tasty and safe foods, it is essential that food scientists pool their knowledge and resources together in a multidisciplinary approach. With approximately 15,000 scientists, employed by nearly 1,500 food related companies, the Netherlands is a center of the food formulating world. The Dutch government puts a high value on developing nutritious foods, as the country recognizes the impact that a poor diet has on health, and, as a consequence, public health care." .
"An estimate is that 70% of all the vegetables grown in the United States have Dutch genetics."
Excuse the nationalism... research into breeding and growing food is obviously a big thing here, and while I cannot derive any expertise from that myself, I do read a lot of research from said scientists and our agri uni and they never focus on yield alone. When it comes to yield the goal is always improving the yield without sacrificing quality in terms of nutrition value, looks, and taste. They measure kg/m2 (yield) but also things like sugar vitamin contents, and test for texture and taste rigorously. Whether it comes to using synth nutes or LED or alternative light schedules for example, they care about every aspect of the product, not just weight and looks.
Capitalism puts a cap on quality....The research delves into this, but industry does not generally.
There are no nutrition facts reporting requirements for most of this stuff the world over. IE, there is no quality control. The industry is paid by weight. If it's free they will make it better. If it costs a penny they'd rather make it weigh more. That's just capitalism doing it's thing.
Are you from Texas? Just playing but seriously, bigger is not always better.but the truth is what keeping a open mind a vitamin is vitamin many thing influence plant growth most importantly nutrients organics is not readily available in large forms it needs to be broken down where as chemical nutrients are readily available taste tests after taste tests have shown de hard organic consumers couldn;t pick the organic grown in taste test
they fell into well that banana is bigger or apple there fore its chem fed BS but wait a min here
if you eat a small apple vs large apple would this not mean your getting more vitamins per size of the fruit
i tend to say yes you do
so there from my conclusion is bigger fruits tested will have more vitamins per
It's not a guess... Double is delivered.lets put it this way if you poured 3/4 of a cup of apple juice you would have 87 calories , 2 units of vit A and 2 units of Vit C
If you were to drink 1 1/2 cups of same juice would you would it be the same 87 calories 2 and 2 or
174 calories and 4 and 4 ???
whats your guess