Don't Bogart
Well-Known Member
My girl just asked her neurologist about smoking and he said he would not recommend it because it kills neurons.well i know it doesnt kill brain cells
Do Your Plants Know the Difference Between Organic and Inorganic Fertilizers?
- Thread starter Jerry Garcia
- Start date
Don't Bogart
Well-Known Member
Nooo...humans are bad for the earth. Which goes to prove that not all organic things are healthy.I heard that the Earth ... is bad for the Earth.
Don't Bogart
Well-Known Member
I'm with you. I'd rather kill'em with oil spills.
On a more serious note. I've been told several times through various sources that each wind mill produced will not produce the energy it took to make it. The average life span of a wind mill is about twenty five to thirty years. But they would need to run fifty+ years to give back the energy that was used to make it. I suppose at some time they will become more efficient and will be used as the source of energy to make more. But as for now fossil fuel will be the prime source of energy to make wind mills. The irony continues..
CrackerJax
New Member
Most oil spills are naturally caused..... like 60%.... gonna plug up the ocean floor? 
Most man made oil spills occur in TRANSIT .. shipping. When we don't produce oil, but instead import it, we RAISE the amount of oil spilled.
It's simply not all black and white...... oil bad ... wind good. It's never that simple.
There will come a day when "alternative" energy takes its rightful place...... but for right now....the word "alternative" simply means less efficient and more expensive..
Most man made oil spills occur in TRANSIT .. shipping. When we don't produce oil, but instead import it, we RAISE the amount of oil spilled.
It's simply not all black and white...... oil bad ... wind good. It's never that simple.
There will come a day when "alternative" energy takes its rightful place...... but for right now....the word "alternative" simply means less efficient and more expensive..
stoner1984
Active Member
i recon if we dont make nuclear fusion safe or work out nuclear fission and get that workin were fooked....
wind n wave wont cut it and have too many draw backs, recon there is more than enough light shining on the earths deserts to provide us all with energy tho.
wind n wave wont cut it and have too many draw backs, recon there is more than enough light shining on the earths deserts to provide us all with energy tho.
figtree
Active Member
doesnt matter what the change is, there will always be someone against it, bring up solar in the desert and they'll find something it will kill because of fear of change.
i am an avid 4 wheeler and grew up with the statement "tread lightly" some have not done this and now the worlds most renowned trail is closed because some jackasses didnt get it. we need to look at how we are treating our environment or we wont have one. my kids will now not be able to enjoy the rubicon trail, what a shame! it may cost more now because we didnt lay the groundwork to put it in place a long time ago. thank you oil industry lobbyists. i am for all green energy, but we need more nuclear, to balance it. nuclear is safe.
CrackerJax
New Member
as a matter of fact alot of our cap and trade stipulates doubling our nuclear reactors.... anyone think that won't be litigated to death and never happen? The CapNTrade pol's know it as well. It's one more way they can deflect the blame later.... after they've collected all the money and everyone is paying double for the same power available just 20 years earlier...
OK.Those figures were pulled from the UK... hardly a Monsanto headquarters..... now what?
I can pull numbers like that all day from many sources.... organics isn't as efficient and it certainly isn't less polluting.
============================================
[FONT=verdana,sans-serf]"The potential contribution of organic farming to feeding the world maybe far higher than many had supposed," said Achim Steiner, head of the UN's Environment Programme (UNEP).
Organic agriculture offers the potential for farmers to reduce dependence on costly fertilizers and pesticides, while focusing on crops that are better suited to the local environment.
The new report analyzed 114 projects in 24 African countries and found that yields had more than doubled when organic and near-organic practices had been implemented. In East Africa, the use of traditional farming techniques boosted yield by 128 percent. [/FONT]
===============================================
[FONT=verdana,sans-serif,arial]The world has no alternative to pursuing sustainable crop production intensification to meet the growing food and feed demand, to alleviate poverty and to protect its natural resources, Shivaji Pandey, Director of FAOs Plant Production and Protection Division, said in a keynote speech at the Fourth World Congress on Conservation Agriculture in New Delhi, India. Conservation agriculture is an essential element of that intensification.
Conventional intensive agricultural methods have often resulted in environmental damage, leading to lower agricultural productivity rates over the long term, said Pandey.
=================================================
[/FONT][FONT=verdana,sans-serf]Large fruit and vegetable growers can adopt the methods of small-scale organic farms while maintaining crop yields, keeping pests in check, and improving the health of their soil, researchers report in the July 2008 issue of Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment.
===================================================
[/FONT][FONT=verdana,sans-serf]Some research already shows organic yields equaling conventional ones, said Andrea Samulon, who works on agribusiness campaigns for the environmental and human-rights organization Rainforest Action Network. "There's disinformation that organic, sustainable production yields less, and will not be as economically viable as conventional produce," she said.
====================================================
[/FONT][FONT=verdana,sans-serf]Applying organic fertilizers, such as those resulting from composting, to agricultural land could increase the amount of carbon stored in these soils and contribute significantly to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, according to new research published in a special issue of Waste Management & Research (Special issue published today by SAGE).
====================================================
[/FONT][FONT=verdana,sans-serf]Researchers from the University of Michigan found that in developed countries, organic yields were almost equal to those from conventional farms, while organic methods could double or triple food production in developing countries.
"My hope is that we can finally put a nail in the coffin of the idea that you can't produce enough food through organic agriculture," said Ivette Perfecto, one of the study's principal investigators.
The authors found that greater yields could be achieved through the use of cover crops between growing seasons. Such crops help restore the availability of nitrogen and other soil nutrients, hence reducing the need for synthetic fertilizers.
[/FONT][FONT=verdana,sans-serf]"Corporate interest in agriculture and the way agriculture research has been conducted in land grant institutions, with a lot of influence by the chemical companies and pesticide companies as well as fertilizer companies---all have been playing an important role in convincing the public that you need to have these inputs to produce food," she said. [/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,sans-serf]=================================================
A response to that study conducted by the [/FONT]Manchester Business School -
http://www.whyorganic.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/848d689047cb466780256a6b00298980/80ca2af0ab639f5a8025728800608e08?OpenDocument
The report's conclusions on 'carbon emissions'
We welcome "Life Cycle Analyses" which attempt to calculate the impacts of the whole chain of production. However, they must be based on an accurate model of the system they are trying to assess, which is not the case here. This study, carried out by the Silsoe Research Institute, was based on a version of farming that is not used by most organic farmers in the UK. Additionally there were major omissions. Overall, the findings are irrelevant as a representation of real organic farming.
The researchers used the wrong model of organic farming. Normally crop and livestock production is integrated in organic farming, with the crops and livestock managed in a rotation, unlike much industrial farming. This optimises resources and avoids the need for many agrochemicals. However, the researchers assumed that organic crop production takes place on farms without livestock and with a third of the land out of production at any one time. This vastly inflated the soil nitrous oxide emissions (a main source of agricultural greenhouse gases), soil nitrate leaching rates (eutrophication) and land use by around 50%. Of the over 4000 organic farmers in the UK, only a handful would be using a system similar to the one modelled by the researchers. Additionally, the study did not include data for soil carbon (organic matter) levels, an important aspect of organic farming which reduces greenhouse gas emissions. Hence, the many negative, but actually unrepresentative, figures. The actual 'carbon' impacts of organic farming are much better (as found by studies carried out in other countries).
Lower energy use of organic farming
While there is no UK data for the overall global warming impact of organic farming, there is now data on energy use from Defra-funded studies (a study from 2000 [3] and the study referred to above - the energy use calculations should not have been affected by the incorrect model, which just affected impacts relating to land use). These show organic farming is overall more energy efficient than non-organic farming. This is mainly because it does not use nitrogen fertilisers, which are produced from petro-chemicals in an energy-intensive process. Typically organic farming is about 30% more energy efficient for producing the same quantity of food, and on average about 15% more efficient (see table):
And there's also this:
==========================================
From http://www.ethicurean.com/2007/04/14/heartland-spin/
On a side note, there are some interesting differences between the two versions of the Siliscoe chart. Here is the original:
And here is the same chart, but from the December 2006 report by the Manchester Business School:
Note that the units of measurement have changed in some instances, but not others. While the Silsoe report gives its figures in thousands of birds, the MBS report does so in value per kilogram. Also note the vast differences in pesticide usage between conventional and organic chicken production, which have been rendered a little less obvious would these not have some environmental impact?
=========================================
http://www.chewswise.com/chews/2007/02/who_sucks_energ.html
==========================================
From http://www.ethicurean.com/2007/04/14/heartland-spin/
On a side note, there are some interesting differences between the two versions of the Siliscoe chart. Here is the original:
And here is the same chart, but from the December 2006 report by the Manchester Business School:
Note that the units of measurement have changed in some instances, but not others. While the Silsoe report gives its figures in thousands of birds, the MBS report does so in value per kilogram. Also note the vast differences in pesticide usage between conventional and organic chicken production, which have been rendered a little less obvious would these not have some environmental impact?
=========================================
http://www.chewswise.com/chews/2007/02/who_sucks_energ.html
CrackerJax
New Member
I think you need to look at ur chart a bit more carefully.... it's pretty damning on organics...
Here's some more..... organics just is not efficient my friend.... it just isn't. If it was better, the farmers never would have switched.
but here:
[SIZE=-1] Possibly the most telling indictment of organic farming is its inefficiency, its high cost and its wasteful use of land. The facts cannot be seriously disputed: yields of most crops from organic farms are about 20-50 per cent lower than from conventional farming. That is why organic food costs more. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1] Efficiency matters. It affects the health of low-income families. Even in a prosperous society like Britain we should not ignore the importance of cheaper ways of producing food, provided they are not based on intolerable breeding conditions for animals. Prosperous middle-clbutt consumers may not care about price, but the poorer you are, the more the price of food matters. Pesticides keep down the cost of fruit and vegetables and if the organic lobby prevails they will become more expensive. People in the lower-income groups will buy less; this is all the more important since they are now exhorted to eat more of them to help control obesity. Moreover, the more pervasive the propaganda that more expensive organic food is "safer and healthier", the greater the pressures on poorer families to buy food they can ill afford. Their diet will suffer and they will lose the protection against cancer that a healthy diet provides. More will die younger. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1] The environment also suffers if farming is inefficient. Organic farming wastes farmland. Since Europe produces an excess of food as a result of efficient farming, farmers can be encouraged to set aside half their land for environmental purposes. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1] However, all these considerations are minor compared with the world as a whole. Farmers in Africa and Asia are already organic: they do not use pesticides or artificial fertilisers because they cannot afford them. The Green Revolution pbutted them by, which was one of its failures. The organic movement seeks to go back to the days before the Green Revolution. Unlike GM crops it cannot help eliminate the pests and diseases that destroy nearly half the crops in Africa, or the development of drought-resistant crops that can grow on arid or semi-arid land. It cannot even match the yields which conventional farming already achieves. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]http://www.barossa-region.org/food_drink/Morrison-s-ridiculous-queue-lengths-more-reasons-not-to-shop...-837.html
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1] Organic farming may satisfy the whim of the rich European or American consumer; its extension to the developing world would be a disaster. As the Indian biotechnologist, C S Prakash, has correctly observed: "The only thing sustainable about organic farming in the developing world is that it sustains poverty and malnutrition." [/SIZE]
Here's some more..... organics just is not efficient my friend.... it just isn't. If it was better, the farmers never would have switched.
but here:
[SIZE=-1] Possibly the most telling indictment of organic farming is its inefficiency, its high cost and its wasteful use of land. The facts cannot be seriously disputed: yields of most crops from organic farms are about 20-50 per cent lower than from conventional farming. That is why organic food costs more. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1] Efficiency matters. It affects the health of low-income families. Even in a prosperous society like Britain we should not ignore the importance of cheaper ways of producing food, provided they are not based on intolerable breeding conditions for animals. Prosperous middle-clbutt consumers may not care about price, but the poorer you are, the more the price of food matters. Pesticides keep down the cost of fruit and vegetables and if the organic lobby prevails they will become more expensive. People in the lower-income groups will buy less; this is all the more important since they are now exhorted to eat more of them to help control obesity. Moreover, the more pervasive the propaganda that more expensive organic food is "safer and healthier", the greater the pressures on poorer families to buy food they can ill afford. Their diet will suffer and they will lose the protection against cancer that a healthy diet provides. More will die younger. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1] The environment also suffers if farming is inefficient. Organic farming wastes farmland. Since Europe produces an excess of food as a result of efficient farming, farmers can be encouraged to set aside half their land for environmental purposes. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1] However, all these considerations are minor compared with the world as a whole. Farmers in Africa and Asia are already organic: they do not use pesticides or artificial fertilisers because they cannot afford them. The Green Revolution pbutted them by, which was one of its failures. The organic movement seeks to go back to the days before the Green Revolution. Unlike GM crops it cannot help eliminate the pests and diseases that destroy nearly half the crops in Africa, or the development of drought-resistant crops that can grow on arid or semi-arid land. It cannot even match the yields which conventional farming already achieves. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]http://www.barossa-region.org/food_drink/Morrison-s-ridiculous-queue-lengths-more-reasons-not-to-shop...-837.html
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1] Organic farming may satisfy the whim of the rich European or American consumer; its extension to the developing world would be a disaster. As the Indian biotechnologist, C S Prakash, has correctly observed: "The only thing sustainable about organic farming in the developing world is that it sustains poverty and malnutrition." [/SIZE]
Hayduke
Well-Known Member
Yeah....that's the ticket...an environmentalist...
Bovine Manure is not the only source of Nitrogen, and to suggest that it is, is as misleading as using that same Stat to try to say that there is more run-off produced by organic farming. Well if you are spraying manure maybe. If you are applying compost, this is absolutely false.
My guess is that they are taking data out of context, and suggesting that the manure based eutrofication is due to fertilizing, rather than manure pond breaches at pig farms up stream from the Chesapeake Bay.
A good portion of the N in organic fertilizer is seed meals.
CrackerJax
New Member
I should say I'm a naturalist. Todays environmentalist is a political animal. I am not. I only follow what is provable and workable and most efficient. Todays enviro's do not do this at all. It didn't used to be that way.
You can guess all you want to hayduke,...but organics can't compete with commercial AG....that's just reality. Commercial farming has for the first time in history been able to feed the world with the increased capacity to produce.
Farmers have to work on such small profit margins, and will always choose what works best and cheapest. The advances in commercial fert's have revolutionized the production.
The next great leap forward will be GM food...... once the kooks are shoved aside.
You can guess all you want to hayduke,...but organics can't compete with commercial AG....that's just reality. Commercial farming has for the first time in history been able to feed the world with the increased capacity to produce.
Farmers have to work on such small profit margins, and will always choose what works best and cheapest. The advances in commercial fert's have revolutionized the production.
The next great leap forward will be GM food...... once the kooks are shoved aside.
Bundy
Member
Often fertilizer trade is not complete. you have to buy another fertilizer or 2 other fertilizer for a good result.
Commercial fertilizers have a chemical hand. harmless but even that is mandatory for conservation.
organic fertilizer or BIOLOGICAL can contain all the elements for the plant. Without possessing chemical part.
And polluting organic fertilizer & it is used in spraying.
It is not possible with chemical fertilizers. A fertilizer flowering is rarely used spray ! lol
Since 15 years I used organic fertilizer and very effective, Easy to carry & NOT EXPENSIVE in dollar ...
Fish emulsion :
Ingredients :
Préparation :
If you use fresh fish, it is advisable to break it in a bucket (with lid) before adding the algae decompose into another container.
Take a 20L bucket and fill it with half of sawdust and / or leaves and / or straw, your fish and your algae.
Sawdust, leaves and straw used primarily to capture the nitrogen that escapes as a gas by decomposition.
You can add molasses sugar provide carbohydrates for your plants and bacteria, the latter will grow faster. It also helps alleviate strong smell of decaying fish, sugar is a natural killer-odor...
You leave to macerate. Stir with a stick once a day. When it is a thin (approximately 10 days or 15 Maxi) it is ready. You filter everything with a sticker of a woman (or another filter) =
you fill your bottles ....
it's GOOD !
Respect has all & good Grow
Commercial fertilizers have a chemical hand. harmless but even that is mandatory for conservation.
organic fertilizer or BIOLOGICAL can contain all the elements for the plant. Without possessing chemical part.
And polluting organic fertilizer & it is used in spraying.
It is not possible with chemical fertilizers. A fertilizer flowering is rarely used spray ! lol
Since 15 years I used organic fertilizer and very effective, Easy to carry & NOT EXPENSIVE in dollar ...
Fish emulsion :
Fish and algae are among the powerful organic fertilizer on the planet. Quickly assimilated not plants, you can use as foliar spray.
For vegetarians, it is possible to change the fish to alfalfa meal and other grains to offset the rate of NPK.
NPK commercially available: NPK 5-1-1. Seaweed liquid NPK = 0-0-1
This may seem small to some, but there is a significant amount of trace elements, growth hormones, organic materials and to strengthen all your plants to disease.
This is a very rich and full. The algae provide all the trace elements necessary for our plants (and any other outside cannabis)
Why are realized own fertilizer instead of buying commercial products ?
· To get a better product, fertilizer is based on industrial waste and non-fish world.
· The calcium and protein will be larger, industrial fertilizers containing very little. It will also contain beneficial bacteria and fungi to your soil and make your plants more resistant to disease. Again, industrial products contain:
forcing you to buy next to get the same result.
· Why pay a less efficient when it is possible to make oneself very easily (in less than a polluting energy-intensive industries).
To summarize, you'll have a complete fertilizer containing enzymes, trace elements necessary bacteria and fungus.
All this for the same price.
For vegetarians, it is possible to change the fish to alfalfa meal and other grains to offset the rate of NPK.
NPK commercially available: NPK 5-1-1. Seaweed liquid NPK = 0-0-1
This may seem small to some, but there is a significant amount of trace elements, growth hormones, organic materials and to strengthen all your plants to disease.
This is a very rich and full. The algae provide all the trace elements necessary for our plants (and any other outside cannabis)
Why are realized own fertilizer instead of buying commercial products ?
· To get a better product, fertilizer is based on industrial waste and non-fish world.
· The calcium and protein will be larger, industrial fertilizers containing very little. It will also contain beneficial bacteria and fungi to your soil and make your plants more resistant to disease. Again, industrial products contain:
forcing you to buy next to get the same result.
· Why pay a less efficient when it is possible to make oneself very easily (in less than a polluting energy-intensive industries).
To summarize, you'll have a complete fertilizer containing enzymes, trace elements necessary bacteria and fungus.
All this for the same price.
Ingredients :
Fresh fish or canned. If you opt for canned, let the juice with. It will encourage the proliferation of bacteria and contains proteins.
+ Fresh or dried seaweed, you will find in most Oriental grocery stores. If you pick up your algae in the sea, algae do rinse to remove salt. Algae decompose better if you chop or liquefied in water.
The emulsions of fish contain sulfur provides form sulfuric acid. You can replace sulfuric acid salt epsom which provide sulfur with magnesium and more.
(Magnesium is essential for the formation of chlorophyll in the leaf.)
It is easy to find Epson salt. Ask pharmacy under the name "magnesium sulfate", it costs no money !
Of sawdust, leaves or straw.
+ Fresh or dried seaweed, you will find in most Oriental grocery stores. If you pick up your algae in the sea, algae do rinse to remove salt. Algae decompose better if you chop or liquefied in water.
The emulsions of fish contain sulfur provides form sulfuric acid. You can replace sulfuric acid salt epsom which provide sulfur with magnesium and more.
(Magnesium is essential for the formation of chlorophyll in the leaf.)
It is easy to find Epson salt. Ask pharmacy under the name "magnesium sulfate", it costs no money !
Of sawdust, leaves or straw.
Préparation :
If you use fresh fish, it is advisable to break it in a bucket (with lid) before adding the algae decompose into another container.
Take a 20L bucket and fill it with half of sawdust and / or leaves and / or straw, your fish and your algae.
Sawdust, leaves and straw used primarily to capture the nitrogen that escapes as a gas by decomposition.
You can add molasses sugar provide carbohydrates for your plants and bacteria, the latter will grow faster. It also helps alleviate strong smell of decaying fish, sugar is a natural killer-odor...
You leave to macerate. Stir with a stick once a day. When it is a thin (approximately 10 days or 15 Maxi) it is ready. You filter everything with a sticker of a woman (or another filter) =
you fill your bottles ....
it's GOOD !
Respect has all & good Grow
(
Jerry Garcia
Well-Known Member
OK, so there's a been a lot of discussion over YIELD, and less about QUALITY, which is what most non-commercial gardeners are looking for.
Clearly chemical fertilizers have the potential to yield more in less space, but I assume (this is only an assumption) the reason most people switch from chemical fertilizers to organics when dealing with cannabis is the improved taste, smell, and potency.
I've not been privy to a side-by-side comparative grow of cannabis where all variables were kept the same except the nutrients, so I don't know personally if organics will provide a HIGHER QUALITY finished product than chemically grown plants. I'd still like to try that with some clones in the future, but I just don't have the space at the moment.
So, is the quality of organically produced cannabis better (using the criteria of Potency, Taste and Smell) than chemically produced?
Clearly chemical fertilizers have the potential to yield more in less space, but I assume (this is only an assumption) the reason most people switch from chemical fertilizers to organics when dealing with cannabis is the improved taste, smell, and potency.
I've not been privy to a side-by-side comparative grow of cannabis where all variables were kept the same except the nutrients, so I don't know personally if organics will provide a HIGHER QUALITY finished product than chemically grown plants. I'd still like to try that with some clones in the future, but I just don't have the space at the moment.
So, is the quality of organically produced cannabis better (using the criteria of Potency, Taste and Smell) than chemically produced?
CrackerJax
New Member
The evidence for the superiority of organic food is mostly anecdotal and based more on irrational assumptions and wishful thinking than on hard scientific evidence. There is no significant difference between a natural molecule and one created in the laboratory. Being natural or organic does not make a substance safe* nor does being synthetic make a substance unsafe. Organic food does not offer special protection against cancer or any other disease. Organic food is not "healthier" than food produced by conventional farming, using synthetic pesticides and herbicides. Organic farming is not necessarily better for the environment than conventional farming. There is scant scientific evidence that most people can tell the difference in taste between organic and conventional foods. The bottom line is: fresher is better. Organic produce that travels thousands of miles to market is generally inferior to the same produce from local farmers, organic or not.
Do you have a vested interest in people using chemical fertilizers or are you just a troll? Maybe you'd care to offer something more substantial than simple proclamations.I think you need to look at ur chart a bit more carefully.... it's pretty damning on organics...
Wow, I'm impressed, a quote from Dick Tavern. Pretty interesting connections to biotechnology companies listed here - http://www.lobbywatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=127
Are you ever going to post links to actual scientific research showing organics yielding; what is it now 20-50% less?
==============================================
Researchers from the University of Michigan found that in developed countries, yields were almost equal on organic and conventional farms. In developing countries, food production could double or triple using organic methods, said Ivette Perfecto, professor at U-M's School of Natural Resources and Environment, and one the study's principal investigators. Catherine Badgley, research scientist in the Museum of Paleontology, is a co-author of the paper along with several current and former graduate and undergraduate students from U-M.
from http://www.ns.umich.edu/htdocs/releases/story.php?id=5936 . Research published here: Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, Volume 22, Issue 02, June 2007, pp 86-108.
Hayduke
Well-Known Member
As a Naturalist, I am sure you would agree...It is not nice to fool with Mother Nature...I am not so sure that it is a good idea to eat corn and soybean products in which the plant expresses the the genes of BT, or will not die if you spray the shit out of it with round-up. My bottle of BT has all sorts or warnings about getting it in you...and Round-up is just plain evil.
BT corn has corrupted the native land races of corn, which allows subsistence farmers to sow their own seed. Now they have to buy seed from Monsanto. Unlabeled bags of BT seed corn were given away to infect the native varieties.
Soybean products are ubiquitous in the world's foods. Round-up Ready soybeans sprayed multiple times with a strong bio-accumulating mutagen does not sound like a good idea, regardless of the improved yields and lack of back aches from not having to pull weeds.
The correlation of mutagenic herbicides and pesticides which persist in soil, water and tissues, being heavily applied to our food and fodder and the skyrocketing cancer rates should not be ignored.