Do Your Plants Know the Difference Between Organic and Inorganic Fertilizers?

[CrackerJax]

Petroleum is of the earth. it's not a foreign substance.

The antichemical-fertilizer doctrine makes a great point of the fact that plant food in organic matter is in "natural" form, while in chemical fertilizer it is "unnatural" and thus supposedly is harmful, if not downright poisonous. The logic of this escapes me. Science completely disproved the conclusion. The facts are that any plant foods, whether from organic matter, or from a bag of commercial fertilizer, necessarily came from Nature in the first place. Why is one more "natural" than another ? A Plant takes in a given nutrient in the same chemical form whether it came from organic matter, or from a bag of commercial fertilizer. The facts are that practically all plant-food elements carried by organic matter are not used in their organic form; they are changed by microorganisms to the simple chemical forms which the plants can use - the same form in which these elements become available to plants when applied as chemical fertilizers. For example, it is foolish to say that nitrogen in commercial fertilizer is "poisonous" while nitrogen from organic matter is beneficial. The basic nitrogen is the same in either case.

 

[TheConstantGardner]

Meh. I've grown both. I've never tasted a difference and sadly I didn't get any smug self-satisfaction from going organic.

I can tell you this, I don't miss the fish slurry smell one bit. Organic growers keep going on about you are what you eat-smoke, then go and pour the bat shit tea on the plants they later smoke. I really don't get it.

CrackerJax has summed it up nicely. N is N and will have an atomic mass of 14.00674 u no matter how it was derived.

Salt build has never been a problem in my hydro system. Regular res changes and a good flush at the end. Always clean burning, always tastey.

 

[smppro]

We know that chemical nutes are bad for the inviroment if we are gonna go green might as well go all the way baby ... Organic makes scence
petrolium based nuted are bad for the earth pass it down

Ya know i hear that marijuana causes people to go crazy and attack people.

 

[CrackerJax]

I heard that the Earth ... is bad for the Earth.

 

[Jerry Garcia]

Here's some more info I found...this is from Steve the Gardenguy at Bostongardens.com...

"Fertilizers are added to the soil to supply elements essential to the growth of plants. These elements include the major nutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, and sulfur, as well as the trace elements such as iron, zinc, and magnesium.

Organic fertilizers are made from materials derived from living things. Animal manures, compost, bonemeal and blood meal are organic fertilizers. Chemical fertilizers are manufactured from nonliving materials. Rock phosphate for example, is a common source of phosphorus in chemical fertilizers.

Organic fertilizers are not immediately available to plants. Before the plants can use them, they must be broken down by soil microorganisms into simpler, inorganic molecules and ions. In contrast, the nutrients in chemical fertilizers are already in inorganic form and so can be immediately used by the plants. It is important to understand that there is no fundamental difference in nutritional quality between organic and inorganic fertilizers.

It makes no difference to the beet root if the atoms of potassium it absorbs are from an organic fertilizer such as wood ash or an inorganic one such as muriate of potash.

Inorganic fertilizers - Although they are immediately available to plants, inorganic fertilizers have three main disadvantages. They are subject to leaching, which occurs when the fertilizers are washed by rain or irrigation water down below the level of the plant roots. Nitrogen is particularly susceptible to leaching. As well, a heavy application of chemical fertilizers can "burn" seedlings and young plants. This is actually a process of drying out, or desiccation, due to the presence of chemical salts within the commercial fertilizers. A third problem associated with the use of commercial fertilizers is that overly heavy applications can build up toxic concentrations of salts in the soil and create chemical imbalances.

Unlike chemical fertilizers, organic material does more than provide organic nutrients. It also improves the soil structure, or tilth, and increases its ability to hold both water and nutrients. As microorganisms in the soil break down the organic material into an inorganic soluble form, a slow release of nutrients is provided over a longer period of time. This is probably a healthier situation for plant growth in that an oversupply of a nutrient such as nitrogen can lead to lush, succulent tissue growth which is more vulnerable to fungal and bacterial entry, more appealing to some insects, and more prone to stress injury from heat, cold, or drought.

With organic fertilizers a buildup of toxicity in the soil is unlikely, as long as the amount of organic material incorporated into the soil is fully decomposed.

On the other side of the coin, there are some disadvantages to the use of organic fertilizers. As noted above, they are not immediately available to the plants. The manure which is applied to a vegetable garden in the spring may not be broken down into organic form by soil bacteria (and therefore available to plants) until midsummer. If organic nutrients have been added to soils continually on an ongoing basis, this may not be a problem. However, if you are just beginning to rely solely on organic material as a nutrient source, your garden may experience an initial nutrient deficiency until the system is in place.

The amount of nutrients and the exact type of elements available from a given amount of manure, compost or other inorganic fertilizer can only be guessed at. It is dependent on such factors as: the age of the manure or compost; its origin (chicken, cow, horse, sawdust, garden residue, grass clippings); and weather conditions such as temperature and rainfall. It is therefore a less exact way of providing for a plant's nutritional needs. With inorganic fertilizers, the type and amount of any given element in the fertilizer formulation are known.

Organic fertilizers can be more expensive and less accessible than inorganic fertilizers. I think that is what stops some people from going organic."

 

[smppro]

Here's some more info I found...this is from Steve the Gardenguy at Bostongardens.com...

"Fertilizers are added to the soil to supply elements essential to the growth of plants. These elements include the major nutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, and sulfur, as well as the trace elements such as iron, zinc, and magnesium.

Organic fertilizers are made from materials derived from living things. Animal manures, compost, bonemeal and blood meal are organic fertilizers. Chemical fertilizers are manufactured from nonliving materials. Rock phosphate for example, is a common source of phosphorus in chemical fertilizers.

Organic fertilizers are not immediately available to plants. Before the plants can use them, they must be broken down by soil microorganisms into simpler, inorganic molecules and ions. In contrast, the nutrients in chemical fertilizers are already in inorganic form and so can be immediately used by the plants. It is important to understand that there is no fundamental difference in nutritional quality between organic and inorganic fertilizers.

It makes no difference to the beet root if the atoms of potassium it absorbs are from an organic fertilizer such as wood ash or an inorganic one such as muriate of potash.

Inorganic fertilizers - Although they are immediately available to plants, inorganic fertilizers have three main disadvantages. They are subject to leaching, which occurs when the fertilizers are washed by rain or irrigation water down below the level of the plant roots. Nitrogen is particularly susceptible to leaching. As well, a heavy application of chemical fertilizers can "burn" seedlings and young plants. This is actually a process of drying out, or desiccation, due to the presence of chemical salts within the commercial fertilizers. A third problem associated with the use of commercial fertilizers is that overly heavy applications can build up toxic concentrations of salts in the soil and create chemical imbalances.

Unlike chemical fertilizers, organic material does more than provide organic nutrients. It also improves the soil structure, or tilth, and increases its ability to hold both water and nutrients. As microorganisms in the soil break down the organic material into an inorganic soluble form, a slow release of nutrients is provided over a longer period of time. This is probably a healthier situation for plant growth in that an oversupply of a nutrient such as nitrogen can lead to lush, succulent tissue growth which is more vulnerable to fungal and bacterial entry, more appealing to some insects, and more prone to stress injury from heat, cold, or drought.

With organic fertilizers a buildup of toxicity in the soil is unlikely, as long as the amount of organic material incorporated into the soil is fully decomposed.

On the other side of the coin, there are some disadvantages to the use of organic fertilizers. As noted above, they are not immediately available to the plants. The manure which is applied to a vegetable garden in the spring may not be broken down into organic form by soil bacteria (and therefore available to plants) until midsummer. If organic nutrients have been added to soils continually on an ongoing basis, this may not be a problem. However, if you are just beginning to rely solely on organic material as a nutrient source, your garden may experience an initial nutrient deficiency until the system is in place.

The amount of nutrients and the exact type of elements available from a given amount of manure, compost or other inorganic fertilizer can only be guessed at. It is dependent on such factors as: the age of the manure or compost; its origin (chicken, cow, horse, sawdust, garden residue, grass clippings); and weather conditions such as temperature and rainfall. It is therefore a less exact way of providing for a plant's nutritional needs. With inorganic fertilizers, the type and amount of any given element in the fertilizer formulation are known.

Organic fertilizers can be more expensive and less accessible than inorganic fertilizers. I think that is what stops some people from going organic."

Excellent article, especially the part about inorganic being more specific about what it contains.

 

[Jerry Garcia]

Thanks smppro...just trying to spread some knowledge and learn a little at the same time!

 

[yob*boy]

Here's some more info I found...this is from Steve the Gardenguy at Bostongardens.com...

"Fertilizers are added to the soil to supply elements essential to the growth of plants. These elements include the major nutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, and sulfur, as well as the trace elements such as iron, zinc, and magnesium.

Organic fertilizers are made from materials derived from living things. Animal manures, compost, bonemeal and blood meal are organic fertilizers. Chemical fertilizers are manufactured from nonliving materials. Rock phosphate for example, is a common source of phosphorus in chemical fertilizers.

Organic fertilizers are not immediately available to plants. Before the plants can use them, they must be broken down by soil microorganisms into simpler, inorganic molecules and ions. In contrast, the nutrients in chemical fertilizers are already in inorganic form and so can be immediately used by the plants. It is important to understand that there is no fundamental difference in nutritional quality between organic and inorganic fertilizers.

It makes no difference to the beet root if the atoms of potassium it absorbs are from an organic fertilizer such as wood ash or an inorganic one such as muriate of potash.

Inorganic fertilizers - Although they are immediately available to plants, inorganic fertilizers have three main disadvantages. They are subject to leaching, which occurs when the fertilizers are washed by rain or irrigation water down below the level of the plant roots. Nitrogen is particularly susceptible to leaching. As well, a heavy application of chemical fertilizers can "burn" seedlings and young plants. This is actually a process of drying out, or desiccation, due to the presence of chemical salts within the commercial fertilizers. A third problem associated with the use of commercial fertilizers is that overly heavy applications can build up toxic concentrations of salts in the soil and create chemical imbalances.

Unlike chemical fertilizers, organic material does more than provide organic nutrients. It also improves the soil structure, or tilth, and increases its ability to hold both water and nutrients. As microorganisms in the soil break down the organic material into an inorganic soluble form, a slow release of nutrients is provided over a longer period of time. This is probably a healthier situation for plant growth in that an oversupply of a nutrient such as nitrogen can lead to lush, succulent tissue growth which is more vulnerable to fungal and bacterial entry, more appealing to some insects, and more prone to stress injury from heat, cold, or drought.

With organic fertilizers a buildup of toxicity in the soil is unlikely, as long as the amount of organic material incorporated into the soil is fully decomposed.

On the other side of the coin, there are some disadvantages to the use of organic fertilizers. As noted above, they are not immediately available to the plants. The manure which is applied to a vegetable garden in the spring may not be broken down into organic form by soil bacteria (and therefore available to plants) until midsummer. If organic nutrients have been added to soils continually on an ongoing basis, this may not be a problem. However, if you are just beginning to rely solely on organic material as a nutrient source, your garden may experience an initial nutrient deficiency until the system is in place.

The amount of nutrients and the exact type of elements available from a given amount of manure, compost or other inorganic fertilizer can only be guessed at. It is dependent on such factors as: the age of the manure or compost; its origin (chicken, cow, horse, sawdust, garden residue, grass clippings); and weather conditions such as temperature and rainfall. It is therefore a less exact way of providing for a plant's nutritional needs. With inorganic fertilizers, the type and amount of any given element in the fertilizer formulation are known.

Organic fertilizers can be more expensive and less accessible than inorganic fertilizers. I think that is what stops some people from going organic."

I agree 100%
If this is your first grow, go with inorganics. A nitrogen ion is a nitrogen ion to your plants. It all has to be converted to nitrate nitrogen to be uptaked by the root system.
Once you get experienced, and understand HOW plants grow, then go with organics.

 

[mariapastor]

Petroleum is of the earth. it's not a foreign substance.

The antichemical-fertilizer doctrine makes a great point of the fact that plant food in organic matter is in "natural" form, while in chemical fertilizer it is "unnatural" and thus supposedly is harmful, if not downright poisonous. The logic of this escapes me. Science completely disproved the conclusion. The facts are that any plant foods, whether from organic matter, or from a bag of commercial fertilizer, necessarily came from Nature in the first place. Why is one more "natural" than another ? A Plant takes in a given nutrient in the same chemical form whether it came from organic matter, or from a bag of commercial fertilizer. The facts are that practically all plant-food elements carried by organic matter are not used in their organic form; they are changed by microorganisms to the simple chemical forms which the plants can use - the same form in which these elements become available to plants when applied as chemical fertilizers. For example, it is foolish to say that nitrogen in commercial fertilizer is "poisonous" while nitrogen from organic matter is beneficial. The basic nitrogen is the same in either case.

thats not the Point We are Pulluting the earth by taking the Petrolium out and burning it causing flouro carbons co2 gasses and carbon monoxide and self enriched organic subtances are Self Sustainable ... That petroleum is there for a reason which i do not know, and perhaps no one in this room knows,but for what ever Reason Its there, right??? and we excavate it and pump it and it has consequences for that. global warming and others ..so pleases dont be ignorant and do something back for the planet, especially when doing something like planting, and do it in a true environmental friendly way. Nothing is environmentally friendly today NOT EVEN PLANTING A PLANT...Iknow the damge we done as humans at this point is irreversible but please be an example as bud smokers and be enviromentally freindly

 

[CrackerJax]

First of all, there is far more oil than we have discovered. It is NOT a rare element, in fact thay are finding that older wells are filling up again. oil is CONSTANTLY being produced by the earth.

Second, the idea that carbon is a pollutant is nonsense. We are carbon based.... are we pollution?

Third, the man made global warming "theory" is incorrect. In fact, the earth is cooling, not warming. How can that be if we are sending all that carbon into the atmosphere? It's because carbon is NOT the driving force of world temperatures. Ocean currents and the SUN are the forces in control.

As for planting..... I have PLANTED over 10,000 acres of wetland mitigation and provided literally over a million plants FOR the environment.

So, as someone who has been at the forefront of wetland mitigation, and has been VERY ACTIVE in the environmental "movement", let me just say that the "movement" is basically corrupt and politicized. We should not be following BAD science, even if it works towards a goal.

The earth is immense and our effect upon it is quite small. Far more oil seeps out of the ocean floor than is ever spilled...... bet you didn't hear about that...

 

[mariapastor]

the fact of the matter is that just beacause we think we have all the oil in the world doesent mean that we could burn it all up plus oil just like uranium belongs deep inside the earth oil is the lubricant of the plates.. the fact is that smog pollutes and plants dont they filter i work in AQMD and i know how smog effects the earth we measure it on a daily basis , here in aqmd we always strive for renewable sources and delivery methods of energy and we discovered that organic composting one method reuse energy efficiently. we measure the air around factories and measure thier air quality metropolitan areas residential we will know when there is a chemical atack we measure the air every day and we have discovered that we can only filter so much and that plants are the #1 thing that helps us and wastes no gas, except when we give it petro based nutes ..... smog kills look at cancer rates in major metropolitan areas you probably live in a sucluded area were there no pollution i invite you to california

crude oil is different that burt oil

 

[dgk4life]

i really dont think they know the diff.. its the grower who cares kinda like how meat dont know its bein eaten.. but vegetarians know they dont eat meat.. does that make sense?

 

[mariapastor]

i know hes not gunna write that smog is healthy for you ... thats why he grows chemically
SMOG IS POISON TO US
SMOG = PETRO POLLUTION
CHEMICAL NUTES = PETRO BASED FOSSIL FUELS

 

[dgk4life]

i dont grow organically and i do feed my plants steroids but hey i aint here to save the world just produce the most killer dank i can.. i aint hatin on the organic growers and would appreciate the same respect.. ps go yankees

 

[mariapastor]

i just hate when i read in the news that pot growers pollute the earth ,,, when i recycle trash to feed my plant , the fact of the matter is that the planet is on strike and its loosing fertility. and we ask why

 

[dgk4life]

i doubt my nutes r destroyin the planet

 

[mariapastor]

you x 100, 000 others = significance

 

[dgk4life]

how we arent producing greenhouse gasses or pumpin pollution out like ford gm tyco gerber etc....

 

[CrackerJax]

No one has cleaned up their environment more than the USA in the last 30 years.....

Look back at any of the shows from the 70's that were on location in NYC. You will see real smog. Now look at pictures of NYC today.... a remarkable difference.

So in actuality we have ALREADY made the greatest stride in cleaning up the air. To think otherwise is to ignore reality.

Now, this so called cap and trade on carbon is going to hamper our economy each and every year it is in place. What's the return for this huge drag? A mere 0.05 C drop in temp over 40 years. .05C <---- that's ridiculously small.

Again, since the earth has already cooled more than that in the last decade all on its own, and at the same time that Al Gore has been insisting we are warming.... somebody is WRONG.

So while the goal, being NOBLE and allowing folks to feel COMPASSIONATE, the basic SCIENCE behind it is FALSE and incorrect.

There is a volcano in Africa which matches the greenhouse gases emitted by the ENTIRE USA each and every day. That gives you a bit of perspective on the effects of man compared to nature.

How many volcanoes are there? Don't forget all the ones on the ocean floor pumping 24/7/365.

The other reason why the entire thing is DOOMED to failure is even more simple. The two biggest offenders of carbon is INDIA and CHINA. They have already said PLAINLY that they are NOT going to reduce ANYTHING. China is finishing or starting a new coal plant every 10 days or so. 10 days......

It's a farce.... a very expensive farce.

And it won't work. But at least now ppl who have done very little ACTUAL environmental work can say they are DOING something......

Uh huh..... the wrong thing.

 

[smppro]

i know hes not gunna write that smog is healthy for you ... thats why he grows chemically
SMOG IS POISON TO US
SMOG = PETRO POLLUTION
CHEMICAL NUTES = PETRO BASED FOSSIL FUELS

Try not to be so broad

Chemical Fertilizers

Chemical fertilizers (also called inorganic, synthetic, artificial, or manufactured) have been refined to extract nutrients and bind them in specific ratios with other chemical fillers. These products may be made from petroleum products, rocks, or even organic sources. Some of the chemicals may be naturally occurring, but the difference is that the nutrients in chemical fertilizers are refined to their pure state and stripped of substances that control their availability and breakdown, which rarely occurs in nature.