Organic?

[Eyes4grandpa]

What Does it Really Mean To Be Organic in Cannabis?

by Aaron Biros
/ 2017-07-08

If you ask an organic chemist, it's any molecule with a carbon attached. If you ask a consumer of USDA Certified Organic vegetables, they might say it is food produced without chemicals pesticides, that it is safer and cleaner and even more nutritious. Possibly another consumer will say it's just a hoax to pay more for food, but what does the USDA Certified Organic Farmer say?

Most will agree it is a very rigorous process of record keeping, fees, rules and oversight. The farmers have limited choices for pesticides and fertilizers; they incur higher labor costs, suffer potentially lower yields and generally have higher input costs. However, at the end of the day the farmer does get a higher price point.

With so many misconceptions about organic food, it is difficult to know what is actually organic by definition. First let's think about what the word pesticide means. A pesticide is "a substance used for destroying insects or other organisms harmful to cultivated plants or to animals." By definition, a vacuum used to suck off spidermites is a pesticide, so instead we should say that no-synthetic-pesticides are used. These are pesticides that enter and reside for long periods of time within the plant, which are potentially harmful to the end consumer. Though organic food does not contain synthetic pesticides, the perception of the food being healthier is also not always accurate. Growers often use foliar applied teas or manures, which increase the chance of the product containing-E. coli-or other harmful microbes. In addition, certain sanitizing agents or gamma irradiation is not allowed, so the post-harvest cleaning is not always as thorough as for conventional foods. When cannabis is sold as a dried product, the consumer cannot wash the flower as they might do before eating an apple. As growers, we should make sure we are disinfecting the flower before harvest and keeping the plant/processes clean throughout curing.

I often hear cannabis growers saying they are producing an organic product, but this simply cannot be true. The term "organic" is a labeling term for agricultural products (food, fiber or feed) that have been produced in accordance to the federal government's USDA organic regulations. Due to our (cannabis growers) ongoing disagreements with the federal government, this is not a term we can put on our product. However, we can still grow to the same standards as USDA-certified farmers. How can we do this? By using OMRI (Organic Materials Review Institute) approved products. OMRI is a third-party, nonprofit organization that lets growers know if a product can be used in certified Organic production. You can find this seal on many fertilizers or pesticides.

Next, if it is a pesticide product that is not OMRI approved, check to see if it is registered by the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). The EPA will provide ingredients and crops that are approved, amounts which can be used safely and storage/disposal practices on the label. Products that are put through the EPA registration are evaluated for their environmental, human and residual risks. Companies pay a hefty fee for this process, and much research goes into providing this information — ALWAYS READ THE LABEL!

A couple of exceptions to an EPA registration are pesticides that are 25B-exempt and biological control. 25B-exempt pesticides are pesticides that pose minimal or no risk to humans. A complete list of these products can be found-here.-Examples of these pesticides include rosemary, garlic, spearmint, etc.

Biological control is a method for controlling pests by the use of natural enemies. Biological control agents are allowed in organic production. If you are still wondering which pesticides or fertilizer are OK to use in cannabis and you do not live in a state with already enforced regulation, check out allowed lists in states that do.

So we know we cannot be considered a USDA organic cannabis farmer, but we CAN strive to meet the same standards:

Follow your state's regulations; they are there for a reason!Use OMRI products, 25B-exempt products and BCAs.Keep an eye out for upcoming third-party certification companies, such as Clean Green or MPS (beware of the ones that want you to only use their products), because we need more than the state to regulate what we put onto our crop.Finally, always think about the microbial load you've put on your plants. Although many can be very beneficial and help to produce high quality crops, many species can be harmful to the end user.

The post-What Does it Really Mean To Be Organic in Cannabis?-appeared first on-Cannabis Industry Journal.

 

[OldManRiver]

I live in a legal state (Washington). I observe in the stores that growers are not labeling their products hydroponic or organic. This tells me that the buyer doesn't care, unlike the market for vegetables, where buyers are willing to pay a premium for organic products.

For a cannabis grower, I don't see that much benefit to growing organically. It forces you into soil, as no hydroponic ferts that I am aware of qualify as organic (cf. pH Down). Soil is just much more problematic for me than a good hydro setup. Pest control is not much of a big deal anymore, but it used to be. With Azamax and spinosad now available, you can control your pests and qualify for organic, but again, where is the premium for doing so.

I just grow for myself, so I don't get a benefit from organic. I don't sell, so what I want is the best producing, easiest to maintain garden I can get. That drives me to hydro indoors, and soil plus ferts outside.

 

[bettygreen]

I've decided to go "organic" for future grows. Thinking about trying AN's Iguana Juice, in conjunction with organic soil (not super soil). I've been growing in organic soil, but using AN's MBG.

 

[bobrown14]

Anyone ..... have you tasted the difference between organically grown tomatoes VS hydroponically grown? By organic I'm talking local grown in the garden without pesticides and chemical fertilizers. Easy enough...most all of use here have grown tomatoes in soil.

There's a HUGE difference in taste as well as nutrition .

Here's the simple truth about organically grown;

Organically grown is: healthier, tastes better, is sustainable, less pest issues & costs a lot less to grow.

Here's some simple un-truths about organically grown:

Lower yields
more problems with pests
People don't care about organically grown


Not labeling produce... can't see that as a "yardstick" for marketing. All produce grown in the USA has strict guidelines/laws on produce labeling. Not sure why the cannabis industry does not have the same constraints?

My response to cannabis not being labeled "organically grown" in a dispensary or store is it's probably NOT organically grown.

Folks growing organically probably don't sell produce wholesale to a dispensary or store is my thought.

Maybe there should be labeling guidelines that actually tell the truth so consumers can make an educated decision on purchase.

Say labeling all the pesticides and chemicals used to grow this "conventional" crop/produce.

I bet there would be a lot more people interested in "organically grown". Of course that will never happen because BigAg, Big Pharma have a grip hold on our government and our elected officials. Food for thought.

Buy local buy organic... it's sustainable. Go visit your local farm... take the kids along with..... also educational.

For a cannabis grower, I don't see that much benefit to growing organically. It forces you into soil

Yeah that darn soil... man if it wasn't for soil..... ???



Human at top of food chain... what happens when food becomes non-nutritious?

Take a look at what happens to animals that are fed a diet of chemically grown feed crops..... They get sick and die. This has been a thing for several years now. Farmers know all about it cause it was killing the animals.

There's an organic revolution happening... go see it first hand at your local farm.

 

[iNeedMeds]

Several years ago, I waded into the great organic question. I read countless studies about the benefits of organics. The truth is, plants don't care if mineral salts are absorbed from liquid salt blends, or are released through organic processes. Either way, they are absorbed and used by the plant the exact same way. In the supermarket, many organic products simply taste better because they ripen on the plant, instead of in a truck on the way to the supermarket. A well balanced hydroponic solution will yield larger plants, higher yields, and the taste is determined by the genetics of the plant.

The real benefit of organic farming, is soil management. In soil, there are many processes where organisms and microbes break down matter to make nutrients available to plants. These organisms and microbes need to be fed organic matter to keep them alive and abundant. When a farmer over uses liquid fertilizers, the farmer is feeding the plants, but not the organisms in the soil. The result is that the field becomes less and less capable of making nutrients available to plants on it's own, increasing fertilizer requirements further. Since the salt based fertilizers readily leach out of the soil do to their high solubility, they flow out with field run-off, polluting streams and rivers, and the bodies of water they run into. This characteristic is commonly used by growers to flush unused salts between feedings. Organics are time released from organic solids, so only the released nutrients can wash away, but are replaced by the break down of more organic substances. I definitely think organics are better for soil maintenance than salt based fertilizers.

What it comes down to is that organics don't enter the plant. There isn't such a thing as a organic ion. The only difference between nutrients provided by organic soil or salt based fertilizers, is the process in which the salts are made available. Organics break down to release salts (Organic), or salts can be provided raw (salt based solution) with no need for any process to make the nutrients available. If a soil produces a better plant, the only reason is that something was lacking in the hydroponic nutrient solution, or the pH wasn't properly maintained.

The advantages of hydroponics is that nutrients and oxygen are readily available and evenly distributed throughout the root system, increasing growth rates substantially. Hydroponics also requires much less water than soil; run-off can be recaptured and reused to prevent environmental contamination, and the decreased labour input makes it more cost effective. It also requires less space, and do to more conformity of yields, a higher percentage of crops is saleable. Hydroponics is vastly superior to organic farming. It's also the only way we'll be able to feed the world in the future, and will play a huge role in sustainable agriculture.

What it comes down to, is preference. I think there is a psychological element at play when it comes to plants, especially special plants like Cannabis. By all metrics, hydroponics is king. However, it really does lack the beauty of a living soil that works via a symphony of naturally occurring processes to feed our favourite plants.

My opinion on other treatments is that growing clean, and preventatives are key. Last resort should be spraying anything on the foliage. If you have to, there are non-toxic government approved options.

Actinovate SP
Agrotek Ascend Vaporized Sulphur
Bio-Ceres G WP
Bioprotec Caf
Bioprotec Plus
Botanigard 22 WP
Botanigard ES
Cyclone
Doktor Doom Formula 420 Professional Use 3-in-1
Influence LC
Kopa Insecticidal Soap
Lacto-San
MilStop Foliar Fungicide
Neudosan Commercial
Opal Insecticidal Soap
Prestop
Rootshield(R) WP Biological Fungicide
Rootshield HC Biological Fungicide Wettable Powder
Sirocco
Vegol Crop Oil

Not sure if these are only available to commercial operations, but they are approved by Health Canada to be used according to their instructions.

 

[Bonsaiweed]

I do loads of research on many topics. I read once, that artificial fertilizers (industrial chemicals), can and do make a plant absorb nutrients that throw it out of balance. The plant will still grow and produce large yields, but it isn't as healthy as organic based solutions. It is forcing the plant to do something it truly doesn't want to do (like feeding pure nitrogen). This is due to what is available for the plant (they will absorb just about anything).

This was a research paper done at a university. What they found (years of research), if fed industrial fertilizers, the plant would yield more, grow faster, but be less able to defend itself, and the nutritional value of the food was lower. If fed organics (mainly worm castings), the plant was much healthier, had an uber strong defense mechanism, and the food was more nutritional (yields can suffer though). Now granted this was based on a 4H type study for farming food, I think it would apply to just about anything grown in a farm situation (although, I'm not sure the nutritional value applies??).

There is a flower grower in the UK, which is using a worm casting tea, in a hydroponic setup. They have stopped using pesticides, for the flowers are so strong, the plants defend themselves. They use no other chemicals and have flow through worm bins on site, that are sprayed, and the leachate flows directly into the hydroponic system. They only have to feed the worms scraps (grocery store remnants), so their overhead is almost gone with regards to everything besides power/water/shipping.

I will always state, I'm not an expert on anything. I'm just passing along information I believe to be true. I have no proof one way or another.

I would link to the university article, but it was a decade ago that I read it, and I can't recall which university did the study. The flower grower article isn't that old (last year). I didn't save a link though.

 

[bobrown14]

Not sure if serious??

Your posting a lot of BS as fact.

You surely are working in a hydro store... I call bullshit on your last post. Just about everything you posted is steered towards getting someone to purchase your list of "ingredients".


example:

By all metrics, hydroponics is king.

What metrics???

The advantages of hydroponics is that nutrients and oxygen are readily available and evenly distributed throughout the root system, increasing growth rates substantially

That's like saying:

I grow in soil, therefor I'm increasing growth rates substantially. Meaninglesss....

Here's the kicker you wrote:

Last resort should be spraying anything on the foliage.

Really??? . Foiler spraying crops, veggies, flowers and orchards has been a thing for a VERY LONG TIME.

Then there's your sales pitch with a list of all the products you want to sell to people that haven't learned to grow anything and then you say this is by far the best way to do grow... No NOT TRUE.

Chemical fertilizers have only been around for at best 100 years. Humans have been growing and cultivating not only cannabis but food crops for 10s of thousands of years with success and without polluting the environment with chemicals. You cannot say that about fertilizers.



C'mon man. This is supposed to be a "scientific data"thread, not lets pump out chemicals that are unhealthful for you and our environment.

Just an FYI - organically grown whatever... sustainable, healthful, better yields, better taste ... did I say sustainable?

Nothing in an organic soil is soluble enough to run off the field and pollute the environment. NOTHING it doesn't happen. Flushing doesn't work even with chemical fertilizers... what exactly are we "flushing" ... well probably just EXCESS soluble nitrogen, that's about it.

There's no excess soluble nitrogen in organic soil. It gets converted into a soluble form by the micro-organisms working together in a symbiotic relationship with plant root exudates as required by the plant. That's NOT "time release" as mentioned.

Normally I would reply to this type of post but you're posting as if its all been proven scientifically that "hydro is king".... I cannot let that stand - its not true.


Put your hands in some dirt and find out what the real world is made of. Please...

 

[iNeedMeds]

Not sure if serious??

Your posting a lot of BS as fact.

You surely are working in a hydro store... I call bullshit on your last post. Just about everything you posted is steered towards getting someone to purchase your list of "ingredients".


example:

What metrics???



That's like saying:

I grow in soil, therefor I'm increasing growth rates substantially. Meaninglesss....

Here's the kicker you wrote:



Really??? . Foiler spraying crops, veggies, flowers and orchards has been a thing for a VERY LONG TIME.

Then there's your sales pitch with a list of all the products you want to sell to people that haven't learned to grow anything and then you say this is by far the best way to do grow... No NOT TRUE.

Chemical fertilizers have only been around for at best 100 years. Humans have been growing and cultivating not only cannabis but food crops for 10s of thousands of years with success and without polluting the environment with chemicals. You cannot say that about fertilizers.



C'mon man. This is supposed to be a "scientific data"thread, not lets pump out chemicals that are unhealthful for you and our environment.

Just an FYI - organically grown whatever... sustainable, healthful, better yields, better taste ... did I say sustainable?

Nothing in an organic soil is soluble enough to run off the field and pollute the environment. NOTHING it doesn't happen. Flushing doesn't work even with chemical fertilizers... what exactly are we "flushing" ... well probably just EXCESS soluble nitrogen, that's about it.

There's no excess soluble nitrogen in organic soil. It gets converted into a soluble form by the micro-organisms working together in a symbiotic relationship with plant root exudates as required by the plant. That's NOT "time release" as mentioned.

Normally I would reply to this type of post but you're posting as if its all been proven scientifically that "hydro is king".... I cannot let that stand - its not true.


Put your hands in some dirt and find out what the real world is made of. Please...

Those are products that have been approved as safe to use on Medical Cannabis by Health Canada.
Link:
Health Canada Testing of Cannabis for Medical Purposes for Unauthorized Pest Control Products - Canada.ca

It's a scientific fact that hydroponic growing methods accelerate growth rates do to a combination of increased oxygenation of the root zone, and the mobility of ions within the solution, in comparison to soil.

Metrics: Yield, growth rates, cost, labour input, water usage. Faster turnaround in your grow room means more grams/kWh.

Organics break down in a process called mineralization. Basically organics oxidize or decompose in some way that converts organic compounds into water soluble inorganic forms, which the plant can use. Essentially, all organics break down into the exact same inorganic compounds provided by synthetic fertilizers. In this water soluble inorganic state, the salts can be taken in by a plant, or washed out of the soil with rainfall. Soil erosion occurs even in organic farming.

The main thing people should understand though, is that plants absorb inorganic ions. They are the same, whether they are presented through composting of organic matter, or are refined synthetics dissolved in water. Hydroponics is just simply a more efficient and controlled delivery system. Here's some info about this:
How plant absorb their food(Organic or Mineral Nutrients)

 

[cmeflyin05]

Those are products that have been approved as safe to use on Medical Cannabis by Health Canada.
Link:
Health Canada Testing of Cannabis for Medical Purposes for Unauthorized Pest Control Products - Canada.ca

It's a scientific fact that hydroponic growing methods accelerate growth rates do to a combination of increased oxygenation of the root zone, and the mobility of ions within the solution, in comparison to soil.

Metrics: Yield, growth rates, cost, labour input, water usage. Faster turnaround in your grow room means more grams/kWh.

Organics break down in a process called mineralization. Basically organics oxidize or decompose in some way that converts organic compounds into water soluble inorganic forms, which the plant can use. Essentially, all organics break down into the exact same inorganic compounds provided by synthetic fertilizers. In this water soluble inorganic state, the salts can be taken in by a plant, or washed out of the soil with rainfall. Soil erosion occurs even in organic farming.

The main thing people should understand though, is that plants absorb inorganic ions. They are the same, whether they are presented through composting of organic matter, or are refined synthetics dissolved in water. Hydroponics is just simply a more efficient and controlled delivery system. Here's some info about this:
How plant absorb their food(Organic or Mineral Nutrients)

I do agree with you on the growth rate and yield on the plants that are grown in Hydro systems. I have been growing this way since 2012. I have done comparison grows with soil vs hydro under the same conditions and found that hydro was the best way for me to grow.
I do spray my plants with rain water or distilled water regularly to help keep down the pests.

 

[bobrown14]

Bro - take a look at my journal.. NOTHING BUT WATER ... 6.5 - 8 - 10 - 12 zips dried last 4 plants harvested - all under 90 days in flower under LEDs. 1200 watts at the plug.

Like I said and I'm standing by it...

Growing hydroponically with CHEMICAL fertilizers in NOT sustainable and THE most expensive way dollar for dollar you can grow anything. Add to that, the MOST labor intensive way to grow as well.

I automate my watering ... spent 7 weeks of my summer flower run in Canada on vacation. Came home on week 4 to harvest and head back up to Canada for another 3 weeks. There's no way you can do that with a hydro grow. You have to be there DAILY doing work. Meh.....

I give Canada a lot of reps for taking hydroponics to the top level for produce to feed your population.

Doesn't make it "the best" and doesn't make it taste better and it doesn't make it more healthful.

There's no way you can sit here and tell me growing with chemicals is better (health/yields/taste) than growing with mother nature. Sorry... mother nature has A LOT MORE experience and knowledge.

You're going to have to show me facts to back up your statement about hydroponics out yields organic soil grown in the SAME TIME FRAME.

It's all good... take the easy expensive path, just do me a favor, and think about where those chemicals go when you're done with them.

I grow bio-dynamically the only catch for me is using electricity. I'm about to change that and use solar to power my lamps.

I'm not on a high horse here. Just gotta give back when folks talk like hydroponics is the "best" way ... It may be the best way for YOU. Not the best way... mother nature will for sure show us her way is the ONLY way. She's speaking out...wasn't Canada covered in a mile thick layer of ice for 10 thousand years... wait for it... several times? Yes so many times we can't count them.

I wouldn't even reply to this but when there's a list of "must have" ingredients (chemicals), well I'm speaking out for the worms... and BTW - we are all descendants from worms. Food for thought.

 

[Weaselcracker]

Bobrown I'd love to hear how the solar setup goes. Was some discussion of it recently on this thread- Using generators to power grow lights

It would be great to hear what you have to say about it.

 

[GodOfPot]

Here's my take on this.....I believe both Bob and INM are right and this is why I hate the way the term 'organic' is used....there needs to be more clarification when comparing styles......because within 'organic' there's different methodology involved.

Is someone who uses nute lines labelled as 'organic', even certified by OMRI in some cases considered organic(such as House & Garden or Fox Farms)? I guess you coudn't really make the argument that they aren't. But in this instance they're still 'feeding the plant', just as you are in hydro growing. A 'soup' style feeding if you will, so I can see how you would compare hydro growing to this style of 'organic' growing.

But this is where a different style such as Bobs creates a completely different argument. Organic 'soup' growing vs living soil growing I believe have more differences than hydro growing vs organic soup growing, and that's what needs to be defined the most when comparing grow styles.

What needs to be made clear is that in an organic living soil environment, you the grower aren't feeding the plant at all.....the plant is feeding itself, picking and choosing what it wants when it wants, all you have to do is make sure it has a healthy environment.

I would argue that the plant knows what it needs more than anyone else, after all they do have millions of years of evolution and survival making it this far. Provide an optimal growing environment and it along with the biology will do the rest.

If you jam a feeding tube down my throat and just pump me full of "nutes", be it organic or synthetic, will I grow faster? I believe I would. Would it be the best, ideal or healthiest way for me to eat and grow? I don't believe it would. In living soil we provide the food, and the plant picks and chooses what it's going to eat and when, and I think it knows better then we do.

 

[iNeedMeds]

Bro - take a look at my journal.. NOTHING BUT WATER ... 6.5 - 8 - 10 - 12 zips dried last 4 plants harvested - all under 90 days in flower under LEDs. 1200 watts at the plug.

Like I said and I'm standing by it...

Growing hydroponically with CHEMICAL fertilizers in NOT sustainable and THE most expensive way dollar for dollar you can grow anything. Add to that, the MOST labor intensive way to grow as well.

I automate my watering ... spent 7 weeks of my summer flower run in Canada on vacation. Came home on week 4 to harvest and head back up to Canada for another 3 weeks. There's no way you can do that with a hydro grow. You have to be there DAILY doing work. Meh.....

I give Canada a lot of reps for taking hydroponics to the top level for produce to feed your population.

Doesn't make it "the best" and doesn't make it taste better and it doesn't make it more healthful.

There's no way you can sit here and tell me growing with chemicals is better (health/yields/taste) than growing with mother nature. Sorry... mother nature has A LOT MORE experience and knowledge.

You're going to have to show me facts to back up your statement about hydroponics out yields organic soil grown in the SAME TIME FRAME.

It's all good... take the easy expensive path, just do me a favor, and think about where those chemicals go when you're done with them.

I grow bio-dynamically the only catch for me is using electricity. I'm about to change that and use solar to power my lamps.

I'm not on a high horse here. Just gotta give back when folks talk like hydroponics is the "best" way ... It may be the best way for YOU. Not the best way... mother nature will for sure show us her way is the ONLY way. She's speaking out...wasn't Canada covered in a mile thick layer of ice for 10 thousand years... wait for it... several times? Yes so many times we can't count them.

I wouldn't even reply to this but when there's a list of "must have" ingredients (chemicals), well I'm speaking out for the worms... and BTW - we are all descendants from worms. Food for thought.

Bro - take a look at my journal.. NOTHING BUT WATER ... 6.5 - 8 - 10 - 12 zips dried last 4 plants harvested - all under 90 days in flower under LEDs. 1200 watts at the plug.

Like I said and I'm standing by it...

Growing hydroponically with CHEMICAL fertilizers in NOT sustainable and THE most expensive way dollar for dollar you can grow anything. Add to that, the MOST labor intensive way to grow as well.

I automate my watering ... spent 7 weeks of my summer flower run in Canada on vacation. Came home on week 4 to harvest and head back up to Canada for another 3 weeks. There's no way you can do that with a hydro grow. You have to be there DAILY doing work. Meh.....

I give Canada a lot of reps for taking hydroponics to the top level for produce to feed your population.

Doesn't make it "the best" and doesn't make it taste better and it doesn't make it more healthful.

There's no way you can sit here and tell me growing with chemicals is better (health/yields/taste) than growing with mother nature. Sorry... mother nature has A LOT MORE experience and knowledge.

You're going to have to show me facts to back up your statement about hydroponics out yields organic soil grown in the SAME TIME FRAME.

It's all good... take the easy expensive path, just do me a favor, and think about where those chemicals go when you're done with them.

I grow bio-dynamically the only catch for me is using electricity. I'm about to change that and use solar to power my lamps.

I'm not on a high horse here. Just gotta give back when folks talk like hydroponics is the "best" way ... It may be the best way for YOU. Not the best way... mother nature will for sure show us her way is the ONLY way. She's speaking out...wasn't Canada covered in a mile thick layer of ice for 10 thousand years... wait for it... several times? Yes so many times we can't count them.

I wouldn't even reply to this but when there's a list of "must have" ingredients (chemicals), well I'm speaking out for the worms... and BTW - we are all descendants from worms. Food for thought.

Good luck with your organic gardening.

 

[TheFertilizer]

Here's my take on this.....I believe both Bob and INM are right and this is why I hate the way the term 'organic' is used....there needs to be more clarification when comparing styles......because within 'organic' there's different methodology involved.

Is someone who uses nute lines labelled as 'organic', even certified by OMRI in some cases considered organic(such as House & Garden or Fox Farms)? I guess you coudn't really make the argument that they aren't. But in this instance they're still 'feeding the plant', just as you are in hydro growing. A 'soup' style feeding if you will, so I can see how you would compare hydro growing to this style of 'organic' growing.

But this is where a different style such as Bobs creates a completely different argument. Organic 'soup' growing vs living soil growing I believe have more differences than hydro growing vs organic soup growing, and that's what needs to be defined the most when comparing grow styles.

What needs to be made clear is that in an organic living soil environment, you the grower aren't feeding the plant at all.....the plant is feeding itself, picking and choosing what it wants when it wants, all you have to do is make sure it has a healthy environment.

I would argue that the plant knows what it needs more than anyone else, after all they do have millions of years of evolution and survival making it this far. Provide an optimal growing environment and it along with the biology will do the rest.

If you jam a feeding tube down my throat and just pump me full of "nutes", be it organic or synthetic, will I grow faster? I believe I would. Would it be the best, ideal or healthiest way for me to eat and grow? I don't believe it would. In living soil we provide the food, and the plant picks and chooses what it's going to eat and when, and I think it knows better then we do.

Well the problem is that I could just as easily argue that the microbes don't know any better than we do what the plant wants, and that we should just offer it a myriad of synthetic, immediately available nutrients for it to choose from instead of relying on some microbe to poop it out. See when we're talking about "feelings" and "assumptions" like this there's no real way for us to tell which of us is right. However, if you go and look up the scientific evidence, there's a lot more suggesting that synthetic nutrients increase yields, than there is suggesting that organic methods increase--well anything. The only thing that I can find that is a benefit of organic methods is that they use significantly less energy to produce the nutrients required for growth over synthetic fertilizers. Basically everything past that from the purported better nutrition and taste, to equal or higher yield, is highly contested and barely supported by any scientific evidence outside of a few places like the Rodel Institute, and to say they are non-biased would be a bit of a stretch.

I'm not trying to make a pro-synthetic or pro-hydro argument but I'm just saying that feelings and what we think the plant likes doesn't stand in for scientific evidence. I was tasked with a university debate, and being on the pro-organic side, I really looked and looked for verifiable, peer-reviewed evidence of how great organic was versus synthetics, and I found very little to substantiate that idea. Outside of the Rodel Institute, there is basically no scientific study (that I found anyway) that supports the idea that organic methods lead to equal or greater yields than synthetics, and none that suggest that organic food is any more nutritious. As far as taste goes, that's completely subjective and I've had just as many tell me they don't notice any improvement in taste, as I have had tell me it tastes way better.

I'm not trying to be anti-organic... I mean, I'm trying to learn how to garden organically myself as we speak. But the issue here is that science is very much taking a side in this, and it's not substantiating many of the claims made by organic proponents. I would really welcome any scientific evidence that would show otherwise, but the problem is that so much of it comes from places that are hardly credible. You have people posting links from shill anti-GMO sites as if they were genuine scientific study, and it just muddies up the waters. In the meantime, it seems like the fact that we've traditionally relied on soil for hundreds of years means there's not really that much scientific research done into it. You can't really get many grants for, "Does soil grow plants?" So really, there needs to be more studies done specifically intended to compare organic crops to synthetic. The problem is, the more and more such studies are conducted, the more and more they side with synthetics, with only a few standouts like the Rodel Institute supporting organic.

I'm with you, I feel like organic and soil is the best way to do it, it's the way cannabis has been doing it for millions of years, and I think humans are full of a lot of hubris and folly to come in and think, "Oh, here plant, let's just show you how it's done," and thinking that hydroponics are so great. But the thing is... When the science bares that out, then the science bares that out. Talking about what we feel and think in opposition to that is kind of pointless unless we're wiling to actually support it with scientific method or with secondary research to support those ideas. At the end of the day, we do, and take advantage of all sorts of unnatural things that science has shown us, so realistically trying to paint hydroponics in some negative light might be shooting ourselves in the foot more than helping. It would be kind of like looking at the automobile and saying, "You know, those things are way more trouble than they're worth, I think I'm just going to use my legs and walk there." We both know darn well the Earth would be in better shape without cars, but what about our society's progress without automobiles? Heck, the debate on whether technology has really helped us at all could really go down some pretty dark Kaczynsk-like rabbit holes.

But yeah personally... I also have a "feeling" that organics are better too. I'm pretty cynical of mankind always trying to reinvent the wheel, and always coming back shooting ourselves in the foot one way or the other. Given our infancy of environmental knowledge, I don't think that we've really fully thought out the impacts of hydroponic growing. What concerns me the most isn't anything to do with yields, nutrition levels and so on and so forth, but simply the fact that all that water has to go somewhere. When we have cities in the U.S. that can't even keep lead out of our municipal water supplies, then I don't know how we expect them to mitigate the effects of nitrate run-off. Before you know it there will be algae blooms at waste processing facilities, and instead of a shortage of food we will be faced with a shortage of clean water. It's kind of crazy, we think about clean water being a problem only developing countries need to deal with, but we're right on the precipice of it becoming an issue with all of our industrial activity already. Throw in a legal cannabis industry that relies on hydroponics, and you could see that problem get a lot worse real quickly. The only question in my mind is how long would it take them to notice. So I definitely can't see myself advocating for swaths of hydroponic warehouses any time soon.

I wonder how this debate would change if it were about all organic aquaponics versus soil. Theoretically, aquaponics should have all of the same advantages of hydroponics as far as root saturation and nutrient availability goes, but instead of synthetics, the minerals and nutrients are supported by natural aquatic life. You have all the benefits of increased yield and growth from hydroponics, but you're using natural minerals and nutrients as opposed to synthetically derived ones. You could say it's the best of both worlds.

 

[iNeedMeds]

Well the problem is that I could just as easily argue... /]

From my studies, the conclusions are this. Hydroponics produces the highest yields, but has nothing to do with the nutrients used, as long as they are provided in proper quantities. The advantage of hydroponics is ion mobility, and increased oxygen levels in the root zone. Increasing oxygen in the root zone is much like increased CO2 in the canopy of the plants. It simply improves the utilization of nutrients.

In hydroponics, organics is pointless. Delivering the inorganic elements is cleaner and more predictable, if you use synthetics.

Soil is best done with organics. Recovering organic materials from food and yard wastes to be composted and returned to living soils, is very important. Using organics in soil reduces run-off substantially, prevents soil erosion, prevents the soil from compacting, eliminates toxic salt build-ups, and eliminates the need for synthetic fertilizers, that are susceptible to being washed away more easily than decomposing solids. Synthetics should only be used in soil for emergencies, where a deficiency needs immediate correcting to prevent catastrophic crop loss.

There are only a few issues with organic farming. The first is the complexity of creating a nutrient flow cycle. How do we collect human and household waste, purify it, and relocate it back to the soils of it's origin. It's logistically difficult, and would be extremely costly. The second issue is bio-accumulation of toxic substances. Waste products pick up heavy metals, radioactive materials, and other toxic compounds along the way, and depositing them over and over again on the same soil, eventually turns the soil toxic, and unusable. Regardless, organics will be a huge part of future soil management.

In my opinion, synthetics are best in hydro, and that's where they should be used. In hydroponics, especially on the large scale, there is zero run-off. The leftover salt contents can be measured and re-used in batch after batch of nutrients. No loss, and no contamination of the environment. Synthetics aren't renewable, but the resources to produce them are abundant. The advantage of hydroponics with synthetic nutrients, is that food can be grown locally in any location, using much less water, eliminating the need for food imports. The use of fossil fuels for importation massively outweighs the fossil fuels to create synthetics. This is why hydroponic farming will be used to massively reduce energy demands in the future, even if it's not 100% clean. Really though, even solar, wind, and hydroelectricity aren't 100% clean, and have nasty environmental impacts. It's pretty hard to escape environmental damage, we have to destroy things to survive. The trick is to rebuild as fast as we destroy.

All in all, it really comes down to preference. You're going to get really good yields if organics are done right, especially on the small scale. The yields are only slightly better with hydroponics, but you'd probably get more from CO2 supplementation with living soil, than from hydroponics with atmospheric CO2 levels. Probably cheaper too. For me, there's several months here where my compost would be frozen and unusable. I just send my compostables to the waste management facility, where all organics are removed, composted, and used to fertilize the cities trees and gardens. Only about 5% of our cities waste ends up in a landfill. I think we're going to see a future with a lot of organics farms and hydroponics farms.

Good growing everyone.

 

[GodOfPot]

There's a couple different arguments here and maybe I'm not the best one to be making them....Lets start by saying that I'm very new to gardening, my knowledge on it only started this past August so perhaps my understanding is a bit less then both of yours.....but I'm here trying to learn! So if I'm wrong feel free to correct me and point me in the right path

The first is the use of synthetics in general.

Well the problem is that I could just as easily argue that the microbes don't know any better than we do what the plant wants, and that we should just offer it a myriad of synthetic, immediately available nutrients for it to choose from instead of relying on some microbe to poop it out. See when we're talking about "feelings" and "assumptions" like this there's no real way for us to tell which of us is right. However, if you go and look up the scientific evidence, there's a lot more suggesting that synthetic nutrients increase yields, than there is suggesting that organic methods increase--well anything. The only thing that I can find that is a benefit of organic methods is that they use significantly less energy to produce the nutrients required for growth over synthetic fertilizers. Basically everything past that from the purported better nutrition and taste, to equal or higher yield, is highly contested and barely supported by any scientific evidence outside of a few places like the Rodel Institute, and to say they are non-biased would be a bit of a stretch.

You can argue the microbes don't know what the plant wants, but for what purpose, no one has claimed this. That's not how soil biology works and this is what soil science is teaching us. There's billions of microbes and 10's of thousands of species, each species carries out a specific task, the plant then attracts the species it wants based on it's needs.

So say the plant wants N, it will send out exudates that attract N giving microbes to exchange with them, when the plant has no need for them, they're just going on their life converting organic matter to N until called upon again by the plant(obviously much more complex then this). It takes energy for the plant to release exudates and create this exchange.

Now introduce synthetic fertilizers and what happens? The food is available to the plant immediately and no more need to use energy exchanging with the microbes, so they don't "waste" their energy doing so anymore. The microbes now leave the equation because the plant no longer exchanges with them.

So you have to look at the trade off overall now, synthetic fertilizers provide nutrients for the plant and for the microbes to some degree. However, the microbes and the plants are no longer working together, they are now operating on their own as the plant no longer has use to exchange with the microbes.

But did the microbes only bring nutrition to the table? No, they bring so much more than just nutrition, they bring the majority of the plants immune system, the ability to fight pathogens, pests, disease, to resist natural occurrences such as drought any many many many more benefits that we're only just now starting to learn about. So the trade off isn't just synthetic nutes for organic nutes, it's synthetic nutes for biology, and biology brings more than nutrition.

Now that you no longer have the benefits of the biology you start relying on more synthetics and outside help, you need to create these pesticides to battle the problems biology used to control, which is where the nutritional mindset starts to come in. Pesticides, insecticides, fungicides are toxic, to the soil biology AND to humans.

Synthetic ferts lead to leaching, leaching has led to dead zones. The equation on yields, does it include the loss of production in dead zones no longer capable of supporting life we feed off? The loss of lands that can no longer support crop life? How are they figured into yields?

In my opinion, synthetics are best in hydro, and that's where they should be used. In hydroponics, especially on the large scale, there is zero run-off. The leftover salt contents can be measured and re-used in batch after batch of nutrients. No loss, and no contamination of the environment. Synthetics aren't renewable, but the resources to produce them are abundant. The advantage of hydroponics with synthetic nutrients, is that food can be grown locally in any location, using much less water, eliminating the need for food imports. The use of fossil fuels for importation massively outweighs the fossil fuels to create synthetics. This is why hydroponic farming will be used to massively reduce energy demands in the future, even if it's not 100% clean. Really though, even solar, wind, and hydroelectricity aren't 100% clean, and have nasty environmental impacts. It's pretty hard to escape environmental damage, we have to destroy things to survive. The trick is to rebuild as fast as we destroy.

I'm a bit confused here....because you argue that synthetics aren't renewable, but defend it by saying resources are abundant. This means that in your model, eventually synthetics run out, and hydro no longer exists, there is an "expiry date".

Plant life has existed an estimated 700m years or so, and it can continue to exist for another 700m years using the organic model. Synthetic fertilizers have only been around 100 or so years, that's less then the blink of an eye in the overall life of plants....and in only 100 years synthetics have already begun to have a serious negative impact on the biology.

The trick is to rebuild as fast as we destroy, correct, and how is it that hydro rebuilds? I know it takes from the soil but what does it put back into it?

Where does the idea of less water use for hydroponics come in to play? My idea of organics has zero water waste, the water is either taken in by the plant or evaporated in the air. How can hydro make that more efficient?

There are only a few issues with organic farming. The first is the complexity of creating a nutrient flow cycle. How do we collect human and household waste, purify it, and relocate it back to the soils of it's origin. It's logistically difficult, and would be extremely costly. The second issue is bio-accumulation of toxic substances. Waste products pick up heavy metals, radioactive materials, and other toxic compounds along the way, and depositing them over and over again on the same soil, eventually turns the soil toxic, and unusable. Regardless, organics will be a huge part of future soil management.

Do you know what bio-dynamics are? The ability to self sustain everything you need. Humans farmed organically successfully for thousands of years without the need to transport anything anywhere. Can this be accomplished with hydroponics?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding this but where do the toxins you're referring to come from to begin with? What toxins are present in organic growing that aren't in hydro growing?

The only toxins that pop into my head are pesticides, insecticides, fungicides etc. which aren't used in the organic . Now to my understanding, and maybe this is where my lack of knowledge into hydro hinders me, is that hydro requires the use of these toxins in order to fight off pests, disease, pathogens and anything else. Once you've sprayed your crop with these toxins, they become part of it, they simply don't wash off which is where my understanding of the health benefits from organics comes in. The toxins used in pesticides are toxic to us humans as well, so an organic product would be healthier not because it has more nutrition, but because it doesn't have the added toxins wouldn't it?

I'm not against hydro, but my understanding of hydro is that it isn't sustainable, so how could it be the 'best' method.

 

[iNeedMeds]

There's a couple different arguments...

Using hydro with synthetics allows us to produce food on non-arable land. Even though they are not renewable, the net savings on other non-renewables by eliminating shipping, makes it worthwhile. Setting up a hydroponics farm in the middle of the desert, powered by solar panels, is better for the environment than massive cargo boats moving produce around the planet. As a benefit, the biomass can be used to restore land, by adding nutrients into soil. Essentially, the synthetics become organics, which means that continued use is the road to no longer needing them. Hydroponics is simply the lesser evil, to current food distribution systems.

The toxins that build up in organic soil are pollutants like heavy metals, radioactive materials, and man-made compounds from industrial activity. There probably wouldn't be any issues with this if the nutrient cycle is localized in an area far from industrial activities. However, for organics to work on a large scale to create a closed nutrient cycle loop, we have to use sewage sludge from cities. This isn't regular manure, and the sewers collect more than just human waste. If we take this sludge and spread it on fields, all the bad will come with the good. Over years, small amounts turn into toxic levels. Plants love to absorb toxins. Near Chernobyl, they're using hemp to extract radioactive materials out of farm land. They then incinerate and collect the material for safe disposal. If you make a field toxic, plants will absorb them, and they eventually start to accumulate inside of us.

Naturally occurring ecosystems are fed by inorganic nutrients. The reality is that all the nutrients except for Nitrogen, entered every biological system in the form of inorganic salts that were eroded from rocks. Synthetics are just naturally occurring compounds that are extracted from mineral deposits. In the Hindu Kush mountains, Cannabis lives in a soil that is fed by inorganic nutrient rich mountain water run-off. Technically, Cannabis evolved to live in a hybrid hydroponic/soil medium under unclouded sun. The synthetics we create are made of the nutrients that originated all plant life, and they naturally flow into the ecosystems of the world, which counters soil erosion and loss of nutrients. Even nature needs input of inorganic compounds.

To me, we are going to save the land by using hydroponics. Industrial farming has depleted a lot of the nutrients and biomass from fields. The reason why we use synthetics on fields, is because we need to add back a lot of nutrients for the fields to continue being productive. My thinking, is instead of using synthetics on the fields, we use it in hydroponics where contaminating the environment can be eliminate, and we use the biomass created to rebuild the fields. Basically we're just doing what nature would do, but in a lot less time. By the time we run out of synthetics, all of the worlds arable land would be restored, and we'd be in a position where nutrient cycling and land management can be maintain.

The reason why hydroponics reduces water consumption, is because there is minimal evaporation. Clean water is becoming scarce, and evaporation increases water consumption. Most hydroponics function inside greenhouses. To reduce water consumption further, vapour recovery units can be implemented to capture evaporated and transpired water, reducing the amount of water needed to less than 5% of what's used in outdoor soil farming. Currently, 70% of the worlds water is used for agriculture.

 

[bobrown14]

??

 

[bobrown14]

As a benefit, the biomass can be used to restore land, by adding nutrients into soil. Essentially, the synthetics become organics, which means that continued use is the road to no longer needing them. Hydroponics is simply the lesser evil, to current food distribution systems.

There's no biomass from organic farming? There is no evil in organic soil gardening, just life as we know it, and the way it's been for a few billion years.

The toxins that build up in organic soil are pollutants like heavy metals, radioactive materials, and man-made compounds from industrial activity.

Not sure if serious. This is where normally I wouldn't even respond to this but c'mon man. You're not really saying anything ... just posturing organic soil against itself with nothing said other than words to try and make your self interest seem "better for the world" ... somehow. Convoluted at best.

There probably wouldn't be any issues with this if the nutrient cycle is localized in an area far from industrial activities. However, for organics to work on a large scale to create a closed nutrient cycle loop, we have to use sewage sludge from cities. This isn't regular manure, and the sewers collect more than just human waste. If we take this sludge and spread it on fields, all the bad will come with the good. Over years, small amounts turn into toxic levels. Plants love to absorb toxins. Near Chernobyl, they're using hemp to extract radioactive materials out of farm land. They then incinerate and collect the material for safe disposal. If you make a field toxic, plants will absorb them, and they eventually start to accumulate inside of us.

Organic farming is already working on a large scale - google "farm to table" or "localharvest.org" - I live in a large city... there are organic farms circling our city for 100 miles in every direction. So false on your statement "for organics to work ..."- it's already working and has been since man started farming what 20 thousand years ago. If it was a fail how did your ancestors make it thru?? Certainly NOT with hydroponics.

With sewer sludge turned into vermicompost/ compost.
Sewer sludge is not spread on fields for organic farming. That's against the law in the US. OK a little chemistry lesson for ya... sewer waste is composted NOT spread on fields. during the composting process microbes break down the shit and the chemicals into more basic soluble forms of organic matter. It's no longer human waste, or chemical waste. Its called soil organic matter or SOM for short.

If microbes couldn't break "stuff" like manure and chemicals down - we would be living knee deep in shit and chemicals.

On radioactivity - don't see what that has to do with "organic farming" .... I guess the chemical companies that make chemical fertilizers somehow get a pass on radioactivity. How about those animals that eat grass.... I guess they are all dead by now from radioactivity building up inside them?? Wait... I just got a meat share from my local organic farm so that cant be a thing.

Naturally occurring ecosystems are fed by inorganic nutrients. The reality is that all the nutrients except for Nitrogen, entered every biological system in the form of inorganic salts that were eroded from rocks. Synthetics are just naturally occurring compounds that are extracted from mineral deposits.

... so you're saying micro-organisms are inorganic?

Here's how it works.. microbes break down SOM - remember that shit that was turned into SOM above? Well here's how it gets into your plants. Microbes break down the SOM into basic organic compounds and minerals (as it has been since begining of time). Plants roots exude root exudate and this is how the plant tells the microbes what and how much of what minerals the plant needs, the microbes trade soluble minerals (organic) for root exudate. Pull out a bean plant and look at the root, those roundish nodules are nitrogen fixing bacteria and plant matter working together in a symbiotic relationship organically. In hydroponics you are bypassing this important process and why your produce doesn't taste or smell as good as organically grown in soil produce. It's a thing. It's been a thing for a long while... Oh and why your yields are not as high.

Synthetic fertilizers are compounds produced with inorganic chemistry.

In the Hindu Kush mountains, Cannabis lives in a soil that is fed by inorganic nutrient rich mountain water run-off. Technically, Cannabis evolved to live in a hybrid hydroponic/soil medium under unclouded sun. The synthetics we create are made of the nutrients that originated all plant life, and they naturally flow into the ecosystems of the world, which counters soil erosion and loss of nutrients. Even nature needs input of inorganic compounds.

I'm not following - show me some science. Now the Hindu Kush is made up of inorganic compounds?
Hindu Kush = pretty rocky.. rocks are made up of organic minerals that come from the earth... it's not some new thing. What's an inorganic rock??

To me, we are going to save the land by using hydroponics.

Good luck

Industrial farming has depleted a lot of the nutrients and biomass from fields.

I agree

The reason why we use synthetics on fields, is because we need to add back a lot of nutrients for the fields to continue being productive.

I thought that's how industrial farming depleted most all of the minerals and nutrients - using synthetic chemical fertilizer??

My thinking, is instead of using synthetics on the fields, we use it in hydroponics where contaminating the environment can be eliminate, and we use the biomass created to rebuild the fields. Basically we're just doing what nature would do, but in a lot less time. By the time we run out of synthetics, all of the worlds arable land would be restored, and we'd be in a position where nutrient cycling and land management can be maintain.

What to do with the spent chemicals?? Worms dont like em, they die.

The reason why hydroponics reduces water consumption, is because there is minimal evaporation. Clean water is becoming scarce, and evaporation increases water consumption. Most hydroponics function inside greenhouses. To reduce water consumption further, vapour recovery units can be implemented to capture evaporated and transpired water, reducing the amount of water needed to less than 5% of what's used in outdoor soil farming. Currently, 70% of the worlds water is used for agriculture.

Well clouds and rain have been a thing for a 4.7 billion years... rain water = pretty clean.
Goes back to physics... water is always going to be here, sometimes more than we need and sometimes in a different form (ice). Its going to fall from the sky clean and pure...nothing will change that sans a catastrophic geological or astrological disaster.

70% of the world is covered by water... so close, and 96% of that water is in the oceans.

Hey bro.. I know you wanna believe the future is hydroponics, but I'm going to tell ya, it's not even going to be a blink of an eye in historical perceptive. We are currently realizing that chemical fertilizers are ruining the soil, are unhealthful for humans and the animals we have as pets and food and is an unsustainable way to produce food or any plant matter. It's happening world wide.. soon those chems you are fond of will be illegal to use.

Put your hands in the dirt... it's not that bad.

Put your hands in clean water it's good for you.

Rinse off the dirt on your hands it's good for the environment.

You can't say that about anything hydroponic. Sorry I wish that was not the case.

You hopefully wear gloves to handle your chemicals.. ??

 

[GodOfPot]

Not quite following your model

To me, we are going to save the land by using hydroponics. Industrial farming has depleted a lot of the nutrients and biomass from fields. The reason why we use synthetics on fields, is because we need to add back a lot of nutrients for the fields to continue being productive. My thinking, is instead of using synthetics on the fields, we use it in hydroponics where contaminating the environment can be eliminate, and we use the biomass created to rebuild the fields. Basically we're just doing what nature would do, but in a lot less time. By the time we run out of synthetics, all of the worlds arable land would be restored, and we'd be in a position where nutrient cycling and land management can be maintain.

That's wrong. Yes industrial farming depleted nutrients and bio-mass from the fields, but they did so because they were using synthetics, without knowing the effects of it. We didn't have an understanding of how the soil biology worked, nor how to take advantage of it, so when synthetics were introduced it was "easy", just spread the shit and watch what grows.

But like everything we discover, we don't realize the long term negative impacts. Soil has structure, CEC is a measure on how well a soil can hold nutrients. Organic matter or SOM play a large role in this. Once you start using synthetics you're no longer putting organic matter into the soil, it starts loosing it's ability to hold nutrients, resulting in leaching, nutrients finding their way into our waterways and contaminating them. So now your fields & your waters are contaminated and 'dying'.

I still don't understand why you need big ships to haul stuff around? As pointed out, organic farming has been a thing for thousands of years always supplying everything we needed and never hurting anything. Enter synthetic fertilizers and suddenly we have large scale biological problems around the world.

Naturally occurring ecosystems are fed by inorganic nutrients. The reality is that all the nutrients except for Nitrogen, entered every biological system in the form of inorganic salts that were eroded from rocks. Synthetics are just naturally occurring compounds that are extracted from mineral deposits. In the Hindu Kush mountains, Cannabis lives in a soil that is fed by inorganic nutrient rich mountain water run-off. Technically, Cannabis evolved to live in a hybrid hydroponic/soil medium under unclouded sun. The synthetics we create are made of the nutrients that originated all plant life, and they naturally flow into the ecosystems of the world, which counters soil erosion and loss of nutrients. Even nature needs input of inorganic compounds.

What is inorganic about the mineral run off? The eco system you speak of was only created partly because of that run off, but the eco system existed there before the cannabis plant. If you had taken away the biology that turns those rock minerals into usable nutrients, the cannabis would not be able to grow in the first place.

Edit: Just wanted to clear something up as the way you're using the term inorganic makes me wonder. NO3- in a synthetic fertilizer is the exact same as NO3- derived organically, in ionic form they are the exact same. The term inorganic isn't meant to describe the nutrient itself, but to describe the method which it was derived. In organics the biology turns rock into usable nutrients, in synthetics industrialization does.