yields can be just as good with organics as hydro if you are a skilled grower. It takes some experimentation to get boosted yields with organics but it's definitely possible to achieve similar results. hydro definitely veg's much faster but most don't care about that because we plan accordingly. taste, definitely better with organics, different too. I have friends that grow the same strains as me and to me my product always smells and tastes different (and better) than theirs (maybe i am bias). However, even they comment on how they can't believe the differences in odors. I attribute that to full genetic expression due to the more natural process rather than being force-fed a limited spectrum of nutrients. The plants can grow themselves better than we think we can grow them. I'm going to be working with a buddy of mine later this year and get some lab work done between his canna grow and my organic grow. gonna do potency and terp profile tests.
hydro is just nutrient poor food. limits the mineral spectrum. part of the reason why organic produce and organic cannabis is so dank. they'll figure it out after they destroy the rest of the soil in prime farm lands in like 50-75 years. it can't take much more. it's gonna be a real shitstorm. i live in one of the most prime farmland areas IN THE WORLD. all i see is corn, beans, wheat, and sugar beets. poor soils that have no organic matter and are so bacterial dominant that anything can take hold in them (weeds that is). time for change. I hope in 50 years we see a major shift, and people start growing at least 25% of their own produce again. that would be a big relief on this fragile ecosystem.
Shluby is right, the notion that organic tastes better is just bias. It is possible to do taste tests that control for the bias that everyone has but nobody ever does them. After doing a controlled test, at best he could say his weed tastes better than his friends (or vice versa.) For comparing organic to conventional there are lots of variables so it is hard to control them all and any experiment done by an amateur here will invariably be under powered. People will never cease to argue about this. However, the burden of proof remains on those that claim organic methods produce better tasting weed.
I already see huge inclination to organic farming all around the world. Also bumping into way more organic stuff in supermarkets that doesn't say ORGANIC on them. So I take it as its turning into norm instead of being special hippie item.
exactly why i want to do lab tests with the same strains grown both ways. potency and terp profiles will provide key evidence. but as you say, there are variables among growers. are my friend and I the best at what we do? unlikely. are we close to the same skill level though? i think so. I'm hoping to contribute some evidence to this topic later this year.
Yea, thats what I'm saying. It should be the norm. I think norm doesn't need a name. We should differentiate the other things and accept this as the norm. Thats how its been since the beginning of the world, why are we specifying it with a name?
If you and your friend grow the same cut and have them tested (or do your own controlled taste test) what will that tell you? It will tell you that one sample is better than the other, maybe. It won't tell you why. If one tests better than the other is it because one is organic and the other isn't? Or is it from some confounding factor like differences in the ratios or overall levels of nutrients in the medium, pH, DLI, spectrum, temp/humidity over the course of a day, size and health of the original clones, relative heights of growing tips, and more. Different buds from the same plant will test differently. The point being that it hard to do a controlled grow. Then if you are able to control most of the confounding factors, how big is your effect? If it is small, and I suspect it is, then you need a large sample size for your experiment to be sufficiently powered to make any conclusions. It's really not as simple as growing a couple of plants "side by side" (the gold standard of stoner science.)
People burn their plants with organic soil all the time. The idea that conventional growing is "force feeding" while organic soil lets the plant takes what it wants doesn't seem to be true.
I'm pretty sure the science says that the known macro and micro nutrients are all the plant requires to grow and be healthy. That doesn't mean the plant won't take up other compounds, it just doesn't require them to carry out all of its metabolic processes.Another key thing in this discussion is the limited nutrition of hydroponic fertilizer compared to that of organic soils. if plants only took in those 18 elements, why do we have to worry about things like aluminum, cadmium, and lead? clearly there is more to this picture than we currently understand. we know probably <1% about all things natural on this planet. so everything is up for speculation
Conventional growing= Eating nothing but McDonald's and one a day vitamins.
This. The plant has no idea if it is getting its NPK from synthetics or organics. It's the sustainability, impact on the environment. Although there are nuances and nobody really knows the answers.
Your erudition is palpable.
As I said, text book Dunning-Kruger.
actually the plant does know the difference between how its being fed. scientists have proven that the plant stops putting energy into producing exudates when it is being fed a chelated nutrient solution. why make exudates when there is no need? whereas in a microbial soil the plant feeds microbes with sugars in exchange for nutrition. and quite a bit of energy is spent on maintaining those microbial populations. can it tell the difference in the mineral? no. but it can tell the difference in HOW it is being fed. and people burning plants in soil has nothing to do with this. that is the same across the board, too much nutrition fucks with the chemical processes of the plants, that was never in question.