Seamaiden said:

<response to squiggilator's post>
What's still being debated are things like why the different flavanoid (sp?), terpenoid, secondary plant metabolite levels between organic and synthetic. It's noted, it's juts not explained. But there has to be a reason, and I personally believe that we're limited scientifically at this time from fully understanding what's happening. Because you're giving an argument just like the last OB/GYN did with regard to bioidentical hormones vs synthetics. Bioidenticals don't cause feminized amphibians, whereas synthetics do, just as an example of what I believe are the limits of our knowledge and understanding, and that I believe we all, those in the sciences especially, must push beyond to gain better understanding. In other words, why does Nature still do so many things better??

Click to expand...

Almost assuredly has to do with the presence of thriving biology in the medium--terpenes, phytochemicals, most non-green (and even some green) pigments, etc are all known components of defense systems in thousands of other plant species. I don't reckon it would be different for cannabis.

Presence of foreign organisms activates a plant's defense systems (known) and likely increases the production of the defensive metabolites. I don't think we're limited in our understanding, sometimes it just takes looking at the big picture rather than getting really specific about this protein or that nutrient.

Gamrstwin36 said:

:stop: Stop It Mrs Maiden .no offense taken. I look to Your advice like gospel in certain areas so truly writing down bits of what i didn't know. .Knew about urine but ashes? ? Another reason i adore This farm so much ...#KNOWLEDGE

Click to expand...

Yep, lemme find the study for you. Urine alone still outperformed, but adding a small amount of wood ashes performed the best.

K, the original paper: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jf9018917
And a Nat Geo article on the study:

Gamrstwin36 said:

This Fact I'll never Think about debating ..But when the debate turns quality and such i guess ima Fence rider. Im going with what's helping my bulging fractured discs in back. .and what's getting me baked so i can muster strength to read and Enjoy family. .No denying science again. .But would love to to know numbers Organic Vs Salts sales wise. Cuz it's all like voting for Year Book Titles and prom queens. .just my 2©

Click to expand...

And I *can't* argue the finer points of the flavor and/or scent thing, because it's all the same to me. Now, if something feels harsh, smokes harsh, I can speak to that. But when folks get like they're doing a wine tasting, it's beyond my sense abilities.

twist1 said:

The only reason for extra veggies or a vegan diet for a cancer patient is because cancer reacts {in their favor} to meat protein; particularily red meat:

In 2007, the American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR) published their second review of the major studies on food, nutrition, and cancer prevention. For cancers of the oesophagus, lung, pancreas, stomach, collorectum, endometrium, and prostate, it was determined that red meat (beef, pork, or lamb) and processed meat consumption possibly increased cancer risk. For colorectal cancer, a review of the literature determined that there is convincing scientific evidence that red meat increased cancer risk and that processed meat, saturated/animal fat, and heavily cooked meat were also convincing of increased risk.5

Click to expand...

I don't think that's the only reason. There are other issues as well, such as what may cause inflammation and, this is key, spikes in blood sugar. Also, what you've posted is in relation to risk factors, not what is done once you've been diagnosed.

Owlfarm said:

From what I remember in 'teaming with microbes' soil can handle a certain amount of synthetics without becoming dead. I think large scale industrial farming does kill soil, but that is a whole different thing compared to small scale farming with synthetics.
I just finished 'growing vegetables west of the cascades' and steve solomon is basically saying synthetics don't kill microbes and soil. They deplete humus. As long as you keep adding humus the soil can keep jamming. If you deplete all the humus the soil is dead.
Whatcha guys think? Seems like many of you are on the fence or prefer organics...

Click to expand...

It's pretty easy to get to the point where you're killing off soil microbes, in both scenarios, and IIRC in TWM they say numbers over 10% are what's generally accepted.

So, is this guy saying that you can pump all the synthetics you want into the ground, but as long as you keep adding humus (in what form)? You're going to have to mine it (leonardite, not bad, but not ideal) if you're not letting it be naturally built up in the soil (cover cropping does this), again, energy, time and fiscally expensive, especially in relation to just throwing a good mix of cover crops out there and what that can do) the soil will not be taxed to the point of being deficient?

The major problem I have with that tack is, once again, it does not follow one basic tenet, a huge tenet behind the organic movement--soil health. We've depleted our soils to the point where our foods grown on them are literally less nutritious than they were decades ago. Do we really want that? If so, why? I no longer accept the faulty premise that this is the only way to feed the world, not when so many organic farms are now outproducing conventional, especially during times of drought.


I wish that Acres had more stuff reposted online, because it's a pain to go to the library, find my hardcopy, find the page(s) and then retype them here. But, in short, ANY compaction on the soil kills micro- and macrobes, closes air spaces in the soil, etc. Add onto that chemical salts that dessicate, etc, and you've killed your soil.

Hold on, IIRC Acres offers a free sample copy for folks to try out, lemme do some searching here.



Pick this up, it will pretty much completely change your view. What I read here on the boards usually comes long after it's already been worked out in agriculture. For example, the notion of 'true living organics' (aka soil food web)--already done long ago before The Rev. He's tweaked it and adjusted it specifically for cannabis cultivation, which is what we don't see in mags like Acres. The thing is, cannabis is a green plant much like many other plants on this earth that we grow. It has its preferred conditions, but they're not, environmentally speaking, outside the realm of any other plant on this earth.

Why is this thread in the UC Forum? Seems more along the lines of general growing or something.

That is how it's evolved, and I agree somewhat with you at this point. I left here because:

Owlfarm said:

Hello all,
I've put a lot of thought into the question of the best herb out there. The popular consensus seems to be that organically grown is better than synthetically grown herb. I have used all kinds of methods and variations between the two. From totally simple out in the woods organic to water culture pure sterile solution with synthetics.
Try as I might I still think some of the best herb I've ever had has been grown with synthetic nutrients.
There are a lot of synthetic haters out there. I went to a dispensary today and asked if they would like a sample. As I started to open a bag the owner asked if it was 100 percent organic. I said no, and she said 'don't even open the bag'
I figured I would post in the undercurrent section because out of necessity I think most of you are using synthetics. In my experience undercurrent plus organics is a big mess.
So what's the verdict? Are there any growers out there that want to challenge the view that no matter what organics are better?

Click to expand...

I don't grow UC, so can't speak to it, but it does seem that it's possible to marry UC with aquaponics, perhaps best in a greenhouse scenario to keep temps and conditions more stable. ?? I can certainly move it, but I did think it's still pertinent since there seem to be one or two dispensaries left for the time being, it seems a legitimate question here.

Great discussion. Thank you. After reading "Teaming with Microbes" I am excited about working with my soil. I thought we were using organic methods, but now know we have a ways to go. READ THE BOOK!

ive always been baffled by the organic vs inorganic approach.
everything plants require to grow are on the periodic table.how organic is that.lol
but i understand how organics can effect taste .shitty water so to speak vs sterile water the shitty stuff is going to impart some flavor and organics may trigger responses in the plant that we dont completely understand creating more terpines wich will also change taste terpines can also play a role in the type of high.
just my 2 cents dont hate if you dont agree

Seamaiden, I would love love to see someone try out some aquaponics in the undercurrent. If anyones tried it out speak up! I wonder if there would be less biofilms going on with aquaponics than trying to run something like botanicare.
I'm not into synthetics in industrial agriculture. It does kill soil and has depleted mineral levels. I guess I'm thinking of my terraced veggie beds I have. I gather used soil from friends indoor grows and build it over several years with compost, humus, cover crops, trace minerals, and various organic inputs(bonemeals, guanos, that sort of thing)
These soils start out with salts from synthetics in them, and they are very light and dry. After several years of building them they become a whole different soil. It becomes a healthy soil with an intact soil food web. But if I decide to add some synthetics to them in reasonable amounts I don't think it will create a dead soil.
I started the thread thinking some undercurrent growers might say ' yeah I've ran strains organic, then ran them synthetic and the synthetic was as good or better' but so far thats not what I'm seeing. I'm totally open to other peoples thoughts on the best herb though!

You've hit the key issue right there, Owlfarm--what is a reasonable amount (with regard to soil cultivation).

UC/hydroponic? I don't think that's as much of an issue until we get into disposal (of water column). I totally understand why folks find it so much easier to go sterile with UC cultivation vs using beneficials and balancing those, seems sterility would be a lot easier to balance than beneficials to me, and I find myself wondering if increasing surface area by which to allow best gas exchange might be one path to allow organic cultivation in an undercurrent scenario, maybe a la Dewey Mister's air-driven system (probably changes the definition of UC or could be defined as aeroponics I'm just throwing the thought out there).

But as far as the 'best' herb, again, it seems to me that's not quite the whole issue or even really the crux of the biscuit, the issue is distribution of synthetically grown vs organically grown through open legal channels. That's really what I took away from your first post, you need your outlets and want to meet market demands.

Yeah perhaps I'll look into what the reasonable amount is. I know potato farmers in idaho and corn farmers in the midwest exceed that threshold. I've seen excellent outdoor gardens that are mostly organic with just a bit of synthetics thrown in and the soil is crazy rich. But the farmer is adding tons of new humus every year.
For my undercurrent systems I built central drains into each room that all join together and drain into a 100' corrugated hose that is above our fruit orchard. Every few times of draining the undercurrent I move the hose to a different tree. I got some nice apples this year.... I know this isn't a typical use of waste water though, and I'm sure alot of guys synthetics are getting into the watershed. We have a lot of toxic algae blooms in this area partly from septics and yard runoff of synthetics into the lakes.
Out of all the dispensaries I've been to only one has asked me the organic question. How about you guys? I guess I feel like it's a catchword that has lost all meaning though. I know so much herb out there is grown with stuff like botanicare and marketed as organic. So it's like guys are thinking as long as there are some guanos thrown in with the synthetics and it's in soil it's organic. For me to say it's organic requires no spraying, nothing synthetic, and a soil that is alive....

I've still never set foot in a dispensary, and the way things are going out here, looks like they're going the way of the do-do bird, so I can't say what's popular out here.

The word 'organic' has different meanings to different people, but for me it's very context-dependent. There's a scientific definition of organic (carbon-based may be being stretched soon to include other forms of life). There is, much more salient to this context, a legal definition, and most folks just don't understand what that is. I didn't until I started working towards registration and certification, which, when it comes to complying with the legal definition, ain't no easy task. Legally speaking, if you're growing cannabis organically, you still can't label it as such because nothing's approved for use on or with cannabis, so that leaves huge leeway for growers. Until it's brought under the same umbrella as all other plant stuffs/consumables, this situation will remain.

Just curious why you think dispensaries are on the way out?

You can get amazing weed out of any medium if you know what you are doing.

outwest

Owlfarm said:

Just curious why you think dispensaries are on the way out?

Click to expand...

Here in California? Because of the political climate, the fact that over the past 3-5 years 'locally' pretty much every dispensary I was aware of has closed down (Sact'o region). Then we have moves by at least two counties to ban completely not only dispensaries, but cooperative and all medical cultivation (Fresno and Tuolomne, currently). My own county banned dispensaries over the past few years, and two years ago put severe limits on personal OD cultivation.

The ruling on that's spurred this came out a week or two ago. Should be in the Fresno Co thread.

The state has 58 counties, I'd like to know what the density rates are for storefronts on a per capita basis. Where I am, it's spread very, very thin.

Chem ferts do not directly kill microbes! It's the lack of organic matter for them to break down causes them to starve and die. So when farms are constantly using salts to fertilize, and organic matter is depleted through natural process (ie microbial action), then eventually you are left with "salted" soil that is no longer suitable for growing.There is a subtle difference there I thought I should point out. Beneficial microbes can be reintroduced to the soil along with organic matter and the soil can go from being dead to alive again. It just takes time.

EDIT: to be clear I am not talking about only mychorrizae, which absolutely will be inhibited by high amounts of salts.

Hey Cap, glad you chimed in. I've been loving the benes. I've been playing around with brewing all three bene packs with earthworm castings and soil I gather from a stream with lots of annual grasses in it. The logic behind this being annuals have a bacterially dominant microbe soil. It seems to work very well in the undercurrent and as a foliar. Brought one crop back from it's deathbed.
What are your thoughts on hydro herb grown with synthetics and microbes? Think it can match or exceed organic herb?

Owlfarm said:

Hello all,
I've put a lot of thought into the question of the best herb out there. The popular consensus seems to be that organically grown is better than synthetically grown herb. I have used all kinds of methods and variations between the two. From totally simple out in the woods organic to water culture pure sterile solution with synthetics.
Try as I might I still think some of the best herb I've ever had has been grown with synthetic nutrients.
There are a lot of synthetic haters out there. I went to a dispensary today and asked if they would like a sample. As I started to open a bag the owner asked if it was 100 percent organic. I said no, and she said 'don't even open the bag'
I figured I would post in the undercurrent section because out of necessity I think most of you are using synthetics. In my experience undercurrent plus organics is a big mess.
So what's the verdict? Are there any growers out there that want to challenge the view that no matter what organics are better?

Click to expand...

I feel like organic is awesome however synthetics is the way to go. My vote is for synthetics all the way.

Capulator said:

Chem ferts do not directly kill microbes! It's the lack of organic matter for them to break down causes them to starve and die. So when farms are constantly using salts to fertilize, and organic matter is depleted through natural process (ie microbial action), then eventually you are left with "salted" soil that is no longer suitable for growing.There is a subtle difference there I thought I should point out. Beneficial microbes can be reintroduced to the soil along with organic matter and the soil can go from being dead to alive again. It just takes time.

EDIT: to be clear I am not talking about only mychorrizae, which absolutely will be inhibited by high amounts of salts.

Click to expand...

Capulator said:

Chem ferts do not directly kill microbes! It's the lack of organic matter for them to break down causes them to starve and die. So when farms are constantly using salts to fertilize, and organic matter is depleted through natural process (ie microbial action), then eventually you are left with "salted" soil that is no longer suitable for growing.There is a subtle difference there I thought I should point out. Beneficial microbes can be reintroduced to the soil along with organic matter and the soil can go from being dead to alive again. It just takes time.

EDIT: to be clear I am not talking about only mychorrizae, which absolutely will be inhibited by high amounts of salts.

Click to expand...

Cap I hope this isn't a stupid question. I water azos in once every two weeks along side my synthetic feeding schedule which gets a healthy dose of ej high brix. So i guess my question is do I have a healthy microbial force? Lol

@Tnelz You are better off using unsulphured black strap molasses because it is cheaper and does not have high phosphoric acid levels. I do not know how healthy your microbial force is. What substrate are you in anyway? Azos is just azospirillum.

Owlfarm said:

Hey Cap, glad you chimed in. I've been loving the benes. I've been playing around with brewing all three bene packs with earthworm castings and soil I gather from a stream with lots of annual grasses in it. The logic behind this being annuals have a bacterially dominant microbe soil. It seems to work very well in the undercurrent and as a foliar. Brought one crop back from it's deathbed.
What are your thoughts on hydro herb grown with synthetics and microbes? Think it can match or exceed organic herb?

Click to expand...

Anything is possible. This debate is an ongoing one that will never have a clear cut winner. I am biased because I have always been a hydro guy. I have been fascinated with hydroponic food production since I was a kid, and have always grown this way. IMHO if you can control the environment then yes I believe you can have a healthier plant under hydro conditions. Plants need 16 elements to thrive, so if you can provide all of them in the exact quantities needed, then you can grow spectacular plants. I think the trick is to get the solution perfect (after environment of course), giving the plants a 24/7 all you can eat buffet that stays fresh.

The bacteria and fungi play many roles. Species can and will create bi-product hormones, acids, or they can assimilate a nutrient... So with the right bacteria and good balance, your plant will basically be on steroids, and it will have an immune system on high alert. This is why you see such good root and shoot growth when using the OG Biowar root pack.

In the end whether it's hydro or organic, the best herbs come from the best growers. I am against synthetic pesticides and herbicides, but I am not against synthetic nutrients.

Capulator said:

Chem ferts do not directly kill microbes! It's the lack of organic matter for them to break down causes them to starve and die. So when farms are constantly using salts to fertilize, and organic matter is depleted through natural process (ie microbial action), then eventually you are left with "salted" soil that is no longer suitable for growing.There is a subtle difference there I thought I should point out. Beneficial microbes can be reintroduced to the soil along with organic matter and the soil can go from being dead to alive again. It just takes time.

EDIT: to be clear I am not talking about only mychorrizae, which absolutely will be inhibited by high amounts of salts.

Click to expand...

Jeez! Then I guess Jeff Lowenfells and all these other cats that have been writing about it for years are flat out wrong. Help me/us understand what you're saying better, please. I've spent so much time reading about this stuff, and every time the author, from Hugh Lovell to the TWM folks to... gonna have to go through and find more names to put to this, but every time the author is talking about how chemical salt fertilizers kill microbes and they're not qualifying their statements as you have (with regard to organic matter content).