@hunter where is the Italian paper.
From the voices in my head
Ethan Kayes
Silicon upregulates the production of boron ion channels, and thus the uptake. I believe it does similar for molybdenum. This in turn increases sodium tolerance of plants, and clearly alters the stem rigidity. Excessive use can lead to “rubbery” branches that are undesirable for obvious reasons.
Benefits of Si lie beyond uptake and accumulation in the plant.
2 Likes
This is essentially my point… Innovations in microbiology, specifically plant-microbiome interactions, are going to supplant current conventional farming practices out of economic necessity through increased efficiency with reduced costs in the field. It’s already happening and it’s currently accelerating up the innovation s-curve. Conventional is already at the top of that curve, which makes it far harder to innovate and at a much higher cost, with each new technology demonstrating far reduced gains. This of course barring any new groundbreaking discoveries that are exponentially less likely to occur. In the 60s a new technology could increase yields 10%+, now a 2% increase is nearly unheard of in conventional ag.
3 Likes
Microbial Farmer,
Do you have a citation, that I may follow? This is the first time I have heard that the channel that Molibdum uses for Si.
We know a great deal of molibdums roll in plant physiology. Until now Si, as a plant essential nutrient, has been greatly debated in plant pathology.
Molibdum only needs to be present at less than 1 ppm, except in a few plants, such as poinsettia, here 3ppm is all that is needed. This is traditionally accomplish by a one time 50ppm drench of the crop week 3 to 5 of production
cycle.
Molibdum, absorption across the ion exchange root hair membrane. I can find lots of citations. Google Scholar
From the voices in my head
Ethan Kayes
3 Likes
I didn’t mean to suggest Mo and Si use shared channels, although it is possible but not likely imo. We’re finding new uptake systems frequently as the cost of more high resolution rapid throughput protocols continues to drop. I refuse to discount anything in the realm of possibility in systems we understand maybe 10% about although I by no means would suggest anything exists without evidence.
Since refreshing my memory on the literature (thanks for the prod), the “similar” action I was vaguely remembering is actually a reduction of B toxicity symptoms, which include Mo deficiency as you may recall the 2 are antagonists, from use of supplemental Si. It’s definitely an indirect hypothetical relationship and it’s not well studied, plus Si may only benefit Mo absorption under toxic B conditions. Good thing I used trepidatious verbiage as my memory was obviously off a bit.
Si reduces the effects of B toxicity as seen in numerous experiments including this one:
“Silicon Increases Tolerance to Boron Toxicity and Reduces Oxidative Damage in Barley” Inal et al. (2009)
There’s plenty of studies on the benefits of Si in water retention, drought conditions, and in limiting uptake of heavy metals (extremely important in California Cannabis industry right now) so again I say, the benefits of Si go far beyond uptake and accumulation in the plant.
Thanks for having me dig back through the literature, it’s always a good thing to refresh my memory.
Patrick,
Wow, I mostly agree with you. The drought tolerance with increases of Si has been shown in lots of agrianomic crops.
Your chemistry is a bit of on cation exchange. We know an insane a out about this mode.
Heavy metals in true soils is completely different than in organic substrates.
Soils have three core components sand, silts amd clay. Clay is our friend and fow. In most soils you can manipulate the clay with the addition of calcium. You can also use this in heavy metal mitigation in the field. I don’t remember
the details, but we have at least two professional agronomist on the forum. Soil science is very different than growing in a soilless substrate.
Heavy metal is soiless substrates requires mitigation prior to the grow. This is why animal derived organic fertilizers are a very bad choice in a grow. Animal byproducts are heavy metal concentraters. Being 100% is possible in
cannabis production, but the only way to recuperate the cost would be via a boutique pricing model. But, the level of skill to accomplish this commercially will be a nitch market. I have managed 100% organic production chemistry, it is challenging. You have
to plan shrinkage in your production plan, about 70% will reach sale. Seed to sale. An inorganic grow, we can get up the 99% in some crops. Seed to sale. In cannabis I would think we should be at 95 to 96%. Lots of Hemp cankers.
The biological makeup of a soiless mix is easy to manipulate. True soils are difficult because of gas exchange rates are lower and you have to manage water differently.
From the voices in my head
Ethan Kayes
3 Likes
The sad part is that many nutrients brands would like to have this full breakdown on their label,
but state laws on labeling is a nightmare in the US. CX is putting their butt on the line by publishing this.
In some state, publishing this on the internet equated having it on the label and would get their products banned.
In some countries, like Canada, just mentioning Humic acid on the label would be enough to get their products seized by the CFIA.
That is sadly the kind of world we live in, a world where information isn’t free anymore.
Cheers!
2 Likes
That’s very unfortunate Eric, i’ll look into what could be done regarding the amount of discrepancy in this industry!
2 Likes
I personally believe in sustainable organic cultivation.
Now putting my own personal passion aside for my reply to this thread - I have been spending the last 6 months really trying to understand the soil food web and dissecting all of the top brands of bottled mainstream nutrients.
I’m a big fan of science and although my personal garden will always be traditionally organic - my mind is open to more of a hybrid model, especially if you need to scale and ensure a minimal carbon footprint mindset.
This podcast episode with Dr. Allison Hope Justice who has a Ph.D. in Plant and Environmental Science really confirmed some of my suspisouns on some of the scary high levels of certain nutrients and heavy metals. Take a listen to this one when you have a few.
Here is one of my many breakdown from Excel. Look at a product like KoolBloom.
RYAN NOTES & BREAKDOWN - ACMPR - General Hydro Nutrients.pdf (485.9 KB)
3 Likes
First, most yield comparisons between conventional and organic cropping systems are actually made between conventional and transitional (farm uses no synthetic inputs but hasn’t yet perfected organic farming) and/or “industrial organic” systems, which follow conventional farming practices but substitute synthetic inputs with organic ones. Furthermore, organic farms are constrained by crop genetics bred for conventional systems, not organic ones. Neither of these represent organic best practices. Recent, focused studies are increasingly finding that farms using organic best practices, with crop varieties bred for regional adaptation to low-input organic systems achieve yields comparable with conventional farms. For example: http://news.cornell.edu/stories/2005/07/organic-farms-produce-same-yields-conventional-farms
When costs - both internal and external - are factored in, the organic systems start to reveal their real value.
Second, be very careful with Chilean nitrate (sodium nitrate) as it can destroy soil structure. Sodium and potassium ions facilitate the dispersion of clay particles while calcium and magnesium promote their flocculation. The behaviour of clay aggregates influences the soil structure and effects the permeability of the soil which directly determines the water infiltration rate. Using it in non-calcareous soils will require additional quantities of these minerals (beyond what the crop uses) to maintain the soil structure. Hence the organic requirement to continue to improve the soil (by maintaining good ratios of sodium+potassium and calcium+magnesium).
2 Likes
Great header - got my attention!
yea its funny how so much of this seems to depend on peoples individual opinions and personal growing ethos.
In my experience, I have always noticed that cannabis is grown in organic or “naturally occurring” substances give a better result in flavor and resulting terpene subtlety and complexity, hands down no comparison.
I’ve always operated on the premise that to deliver a true medical product then it needs to be fed with organic compounds as there does seem to be some evidence pointing toward chemical residue left of unmetabolized salts within the flower, but perhaps this is just the same for organically grown as well, but it doesn’t seem to be to the same degree as the salt levels are usually lower in organic matter.
In terms of data, there seems to be a lot of contradictory information out there - but it is possible to produce the same prolific yields and harvest turn around times with organics as it is with synthetics, it’s just that it takes more work and experience and trial and error to dial it in consistently.
3 Likes
Are saying that cherry picking the most production organic farms isn’t biased research? 20% yield reduction is average across 100s of studies, depending on the crop, such as high demand annuals it can be greater gap, or low demand perennials it can be a lower gap or even matching in yield. Also, relying on the no true scotsman fallacy (an appeal to purity) of “hasn’t perfect organic farming” isn’t a valid argument. Averages are averages.
For soil structure and fertility to be affected by sodium, it needs to be in excess of 5%, that is a great deal of sodium. If sodium levels are that high, you have bigger problems, likely associated with your water source. Of course arid climate tend to be sodic from lack of water infiltration, are soil that already has a compaction zone. Sodium nitrate should not be used as a sole nitrogen source. It is recommended at 20% total nitrogen. The effect of this sodium from sodium nitrate at the recommend rate is minimal on total sodium content and will quickly leach with irrigation. One key component to sodic soil is their high pH which ties up Ca, and is going to cause it’s own problems for cannabis production. There few areas in the US where this would be a concern are areas where this would be a problem probably wouldn’t grow cannabis very well regardless.
3 Likes
It just depends.
Have an employer or own the place? In either case - someone might have a spiritual belief in organics and/or a need for certain efficiencies, or not. Sometimes organic is a good route to take and sometimes inorganic is a good route to take. I can say that living soil organic or hydroponic are my two options [because at scale anything in the middle is called, “suffering” - at least in terms of a perpetual operation, once real scale is reached, IMHO]. I can say organics done right can be really efficient in employee energy and employees are expensive [so let’s say you assume a yield increase of 25% with inorganic but spend more than you earned additionally in the number of employees required and the turnover of medium… That’s not optimization]. Personally, I have achieved the same yields in the same space with both and have practices to gain in terpenes and other concerns to match either together in quality. I have also been able to get my cost per gram nice and low in either case.
I do not consider OMRI certification to mean organic - I find that to be Uncle Sam’s definition and I don’t much care for Uncle Sam’s opinions [I think it is subjective]. I also do not consider most inorganic applications, as it is commonly used, to be evil or anything. There is a responsible way to do anything so claiming ‘because I am organic I am the responsible one’, I find that to be poor form.
It can just come down to marketing strategy, product type, and general consumer base in an area or arena [demographics or wanted wholesale relationships, etc]. Sure, organic will yield less if done without a lot of care, but sometimes you can sell it at a premium, and enough so that it is worth it if you land the right whale. Sometimes, it is the only way to get that ‘deal done’.
So, this topic sits right at the crossroads of spiritual and business. However, I think having a strict preference often lacks business acumen when it comes to this topic. Organic for many acres can be cheap in the long run as far as inputs are concerned moving forward - but the start up cost will be higher. So I find this decision is often made by startups based on their budget more often than by the person they hire or any beliefs that they have.
Last grow: Fully organic, complex, wide no till indoor beds, lovely living soil, and was awesome!
The job I just interviewed for and hope to get: The complete opposite. Fully inorganic [accept IPM], DWC, and would be awesome!
They both have their merits.
I consider, in part, the title Master Grower to mean you have ample experience and deep knowledge of every little tweaked method one can think of and you could come up with a new one tomorrow [that applies in the real world or just for fun]. I consider it a practice.
I can say that I think under some circumstances respecting the Earth matters. Especially if you have 10,000 acres and you are planning to pass away some day and leave that farm to the next generation. I think industrial hemp has the ability to bring land back to life, along with solid practices, that needs to be brought back to life [it can clean up nuclear waste…]. I also think if you are looking to sell millions of bottles of “CBD” to the average consumer honestly being able to label organic might just be a good idea [especially if price point matters to you]. I don’t like the idea of leaving behind ‘spent farm lands’. At the same time - with some extra consideration - you can still be ‘kind to the land’ and not be certified organic.
So for me it isn’t a debate. It is just an option. I do not have a personal preference at the end of the day - outside of large open air industrial hemp production [but that is less spiritual for me and more of a pragmatic thing]. Just thoughts. I think for most ‘marijuana scale’ operations inorganic production is the ticket, hydroponics specifically, and most recreational users respond to ‘hydro grown’ with the same excitement patients in a hippy retirement community respond to ‘sustainable’. Most consumers in the rec market, you can put a disturbing pesticide right on the label, and all they read is “25% THC” and it’s sold, regardless. They care more about price per mg of THC than their own health most of the time [so love them more than they love themselves, please]. When it comes to patients, if I catch you using something you shouldn’t be using in that sphere [of true illness and poor immune systems] I will take you outback and break your legs [so I consider that area to be really restrictive in practices].
KNF type methods, and “20-20-20” types, are to organic as dry fertilizer is to inorganic. So price of inputs is sort of up to the will of the operation, buying power, etc. I can tell you that I am opposed to paying the cost of shipping water and constantly having big plastic tubs to throw away [and I don’t like recycling. I think recycling is just a way to make ‘cretebillies’ feel like their lifestyle is ‘okay’ and it represents general failure]. So if I am not going organic, I might start with a ‘bottle of something’ while I set up relationships and sort what will be best for the operation as far as dry fertilizers go, but that will end in a hurry if it even starts to began with. Certainly shipping inorganic dry nutrients are far less heavy per square foot compared to dry organic.
At the end of the day what I have stated is both right and wrong, honestly, but not all of it, lol. Perspective. It always comes down to the operation, the bottom line, and what your intentions are. Personally, if you want me to grow fully organic in living soil with dry inputs, etc, you had either better be big enough that someone will come to you with a flat bed or have a local feed store with excellent bulk pricing [or I am going to just stare at you endlessly in permanent amazement]. At that point it matters to me where someone has located the farm and what my neighbors, or the total environment, might provide.
- David
2 Likes