Organic Vs. Synthetic Nutrients

cdgmoney250 said:
Sure, which is alluding to the point I’m trying to make. You might get different expressions from the exact same fertilizer on the exact same plant, using different media because of how the fertilizer reacts with said media. Some fertilizer companies even make different lines for soil, coco, or straight hydroponics. Some don’t.

That’s partly why I find the umbrella statements of what Synthetic feed can do over Organic methods ironic and hilarious.
Click to expand...
Hydroponic mediums are inert so the difference would be which medium provides more oxygen to the roots.
Pro mix vs coco vs ebb n flow all using the same nutrient. You would get better growth with ebb n flow with all things being equal except medium.
 
shorelineOG said:
Hydroponic mediums are inert so the difference would be which medium provides more oxygen to the roots.
Pro mix vs coco vs ebb n flow all using the same nutrient. You would get better growth with ebb n flow with all things being equal except medium.
Click to expand...
Peat moss and coco are considered soil-less media by themselves, which can and often times (in the case of coco) are used hydroponically. They both are not inert, and have very different Cation Exchange Capacities and ph buffering than say rockwool, perlite, expanded clay pebbles, or DWC/Aeroponics.

And in this case, I’m talking about quality of finished bud, not vegetative growth rates when comparing.
 
A good podcast on the Organic vs Synthetics discussion. The presenter, Tad Hussey, runs KIS Organics which is a dry organic amendment supply company, but the guest on this particular podcast runs a synthetic fertilizer company. The presenter is deep into organics but the podcast is very much in the spirit of rolitup.org in that the differences of opinions are discussed in a friendly manor and talking points are anchored science not opinion.
It's not framed as a debate about which is best, it's more of a discussion about the differences between approaches. They cover things like heavy metals, growing mediums, microbes in relation to synthetics, and hybrid methods.

There a ton of other podcasts on the site that dive really deeply into all aspects of organics. Microbes, IPMS, genetics and terpene expressions, cover crops, heavy metals, etc. A great listen when you're trimming, you can just let it run in the background.
www.kisorganics.com

Podcast

This is the podcast where we bring leading experts from the horticulture and gardening industry and find out the latest information and research for cannabis cultivation. Forget the marketing hype from bottled nutrient companies, everything on this show is based on science and research. If you...
www.kisorganics.com www.kisorganics.com
 
Last edited:
Here is a study review examining over 100 studies dating back over 80 years testing synthetic vs organic growing styles. Many side by sides, many long term plot studies.

Frontiers | Soil Health and Nutrient Density: Beyond Organic vs. Conventional Farming

Controversy has long surrounded the question of nutritional differences between crops grown organically or using now-conventional methods, with studies datin...
www.frontiersin.org www.frontiersin.org

Just thought I’d drop this here for anybody interested in reading science-based arguments for why Organic is better.

Cheers :peace:
 
Last edited:
What plants take in after soil life has broken down the organics to usable elements is EXACTLY the same as the ones in manufactured nutrients so the whole organic vs "synthetic" hoopla is moot. The only true advantage of organics is ease of use. And I offer you the same challenge I've put out for consideration for 40 years: Tell me what "nasty chemicals" are supposedly in the nutrients. No one has ever had a definitive answer, and never will because there are none.
Oh, and I grow mostly organic only because there is no mixing and measuring and fussing, I much prefer the simplicity.
 
Any recent study done on the affects of soil microbiology on secondary metabolite production would disagree with the “moot” argument including the mass study review posted directly above your comment. The pathways of mineral uptake and what minerals get taken up differ from an organic grow to a synthetic grow.

Also, another thread that devolved into a flushing discussion would add to the topic of what’s left in buds; minerals/chlorophylls. There’s a reason why flushing makes zero sense in an organic grow, but can make perfect sense in a synthetic grow.
 
That Frontiers article linked up above is a joke. They sound like brainworm trying to talk about agriculture.
The plant is taking up the same ions regardless whether you use organic or the straight salts.
 
I just glanced at the report. Even if organic allows for additional uptake of certain minerals and phytochemicals. It may not be safe to assume that the canibis will be of higher potentacy better taste or yield.
 
Reports side, let’s just look at this argument with a little simple logic. Yes, the plant is taking up the same ions, but there are a lot more substances at play in the root zone. There are more processes going on in living soil than in a salt coco grow or hydro reservoir, because there are more types of organisms in there living and interacting together. Bacteria, enzymes, exudates, fungal networks - different substances “do something” and have some type of effect in that root zone.

Remember, different phenotypical expressions often come out from different environments and grow methods. That alone means we can’t discount that there are differences between grow methods. Life is infinitely complex. “Not everything that can be measured matters, and not everything that matters can be measured”.
 
The one doesn't have to exclude the other? I argue that you get the best results by combining the two? Using highly readily bio-available mineral salts combined with aminos, chelators, trace minerals and enzymes from natural sources.

The only really inert kind of growing is Aero, DWC and Rockwool with flood tables without any kind of degrading medium to work with. Coco and Peat/Pro-mix both leaves room for added organic benefits from plenty of sources and approaches and both substrates are organic amendments by themselves.
 
My main point was that we don’t know enough yet to be able to really “solve” this argument once and for all. It’s too complex and there are too many variables at play to draw the direct comparisons, to validate any one method.

NotSoDog more or less says that the only important thing at the end of the day, is that you grow with the method that gives you the best results. I really like that perspective.

I’ve not grown in hydro. I’ve used soilless mixes with bottled salt nutrients, and have ventured deep into making my own organic mixes. One method requires a little bit of constant work and attention to detail, while the other method is “all the work up front” and then cruise control through the grow. I just do what works best for my situation, to keep my jars full and my eyelids heavy. I’ve seen some amazing grows with different methods. It’s one of the reasons I like to scroll through different journals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Spliffy Twojoints
Cloning during flower DIY bubble cloner
2
Replies
38
Views
4K
Fano_man
Fano_man
B
Letting veg to long and not sure how to prune. Can you guys help?
Replies
9
Views
1K
bongboy8200
B
S
Switching from soil to coco, suggestions??!
Replies
6
Views
761
PopeCrisco
PopeCrisco
B
Synthetic vs Organic ..Why do ppl go the synthetic route?
2 3 4
Replies
60
Views
7K
Cpappa27
Cpappa27
Bananamufn
I would like some info from some old heads on how things were done in the late 80s and early 90s.
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
Fladawg01
Fladawg01
Back
Top