Welcome to UK420

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more!

This message will be removed once you have signed in.


Artificial Emotion

Why does organic weed taste better?

172 posts in this topic

I have done hundreds of tests over the years, the main thing I learned as a general observation was people who smoke weed with tobacco cant tell what something was grown with, people who smoke neat can not only pick out chem grown weed but can mostly tell the difference between different makes of organic fertilisers.

This is not opinion on my part but from blind testing.

I would grow say 2 to 6 clone lines, usually useing 2 or 3 types of fertilisers, give samples from each clone grown with a, b , c, fertilisers. so there are from 4 to 12 numbered samples asking to rate each group of 2 in order of quality of smoke etc.

The none baccy smokers almost always picked out the chem grown weed as least favorite, some would not even believe it was the same clone that produced the bud.

Vape people are nearly as good, they were nearly always able to pick the chem as least fav though.

Baccy smokers were always all over the place, it was like spinning a coin.

The test before last was between 3 organic fertilisers here!

The last test I did was between biobizz grow, bloom and fish against the prototype PM organic grow and bloom, no baccy smokers this time here.

Seeing what some people are saying here, may be I've not learned how to grow well yet.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks OT it is nice to have some numbers to support what I too think but had no way of proving and that is same in the sense that once there is no tobacco clouding the picture you can definitely tell the difference. It's just the same as fruit and veg grown organically. There is something for flavoursome about them all IMO.

Then really I am looking like this the wrong way round organic tastes like it's supposed to and chemically fed tastes poorer.

E2A: as matter of fact I probably couldn't taste the difference between organic and chem grown veg when I smoked baccy either!

Edited by chickenlipsr4

Share this post


Link to post
:yep: That's a point. I've been a pure smoker in the past when I grew NFT (and have now been off the baccy for 7 months after a few years on the cigs and baccy spliffs). Back then I only smoked my own weed but I definitely used to notice the difference in taste between different nutes. So far since quitting fags I've only smoked my Bio-Bizz grown smile and PM Organic Killer so I guess I probably could tell the difference nowadays again. But for sure, if you smoke with baccy I defy anyone to tell anything about the weed beyond narrowing it down to a few strains :yep:

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think you can really argue with a single-blind test like OT1 did.

So, assuming there is a taste difference, what causes it? Why does giving the plants the mineral ions they'll get anyway from organic fertilizers produce worse tasting (or different tasting) cannabis?

Edited by Artificial Emotion

Share this post


Link to post

OT, next time you do a sbs, any chance of a lucas formula v organic taste test?

I never flush and after a 2 month cure it's very smooth.

Share this post


Link to post
I don't think you can really argue with a single-blind test like OT1 did.

So, assuming there is a taste difference, what causes it? Why does giving the plants the mineral ions they'll get anyway from organic fertilizers produce worse tasting (or different tasting) cannabis?

I'd hazard a guess that some of the complex organic molecules in organic nutes are taken up by plants in some form and can help produce a more complex and interesting terpene profile than the plants can manage with basic chem nutes.

I've only smoked organic weed in recent years so can't compare, but I think my garden veg grown with organic nutes tastes way better than veg I've grown with chem feeds and don't see why the same wouldn't apply to smoked weed.

Share this post


Link to post
I don't think you can really argue with a single-blind test like OT1 did.

So, assuming there is a taste difference, what causes it? Why does giving the plants the mineral ions they'll get anyway from organic fertilizers produce worse tasting (or different tasting) cannabis?

I'd hazard a guess that some of the complex organic molecules in organic nutes are taken up by plants in some form and can help produce a more complex and interesting terpene profile than the plants can manage with basic chem nutes.

I've only smoked organic weed in recent years so can't compare, but I think my garden veg grown with organic nutes tastes way better than veg I've grown with chem feeds and don't see why the same wouldn't apply to smoked weed.

Thanks BP :smoke: Your hypothesis does make sense when you think about it.

Share this post


Link to post
By definition organic weed is outdoor and outdoor always tastes better just like wine every area has its own environment which produces different tasting weed. Some weed has a really noticable taste of the soil/environment it was in. Naturaly ferile soil that you couldnt improve if you tried is not the same as some liquid feed or imported nutrients.

Organic is something I belive in, not growing organic tomatos this year but hopefully next year fuck chemical ferts!

Definitley outdoor weed tastes "different" i think its smoother but is it better i am not sure really and would agree with a previous poster .If it was a blind taste test i doubt people would know which is which with regards Hydro/ Organic.

Share this post


Link to post

Its down to the grower :smoke:

Plus it is worth noting that by definition any weed grown in a pot indoors (or even outdoors) is NOT organic.

Ergo, very few have grown fully organic weed.

That said, many have grown their indoor weed as organically as possible, and that is where I find myself. Does it taste better? Better than what? It tastes better than the weed I've grown using chempak and the like, that's for sure. But take a grower like Owderb, I've smoked his hydro and it was an easy equal to my semi-organic bud, on the taste side. No difference between 'em; but Owd' is a good grower, and knows how to use his hydro nutes properly. Other hydro weeds I've smoked were fit for nowt but t'bin.

In the end, Oldtimer's experiment is hard to refute.

For me, growing organically is much more than a taste issue, even though I rate the taste as an extremely important factor in growing. Its all about footprint, and I aim to leave as little a mark as possible on Gaia's gentle face. If I get a decent taste as reward, its a bonus.

Share this post


Link to post

Back in the day a good few years ago I was part of a co-op that did lots of experiments, most were hydro growers and quality was the prime aim GH flora nutrients were the base fertilisers used, they were the cleanest and purest chemical nutrients of the time, so any new chem fert was tested against a flora combination as the one to beat. GH flora was still the top chem combination when I dropped out, apart from a little tinkering in veg, lucas ratios are pretty near to what we used when flowering.

GH flora had trounced all the other main chem fertilisers of the day in one to ones including against compost grow with earth juice, but was finally soundly beaten by the newly arrived bb organic nutrients used in their allmix.

lazi I have been there, I no longer have access to hydro equipment and more to the point don’t have the energy to do it all over.

I had dropped allmix in 03 or 04 I think, as it had become a very poor comparison to what it had been.

For me up to recently although bb changed their products many times over the years, although they say they have not, their liquid grow, bloom and fish were still the best on the market, even though not as good as they had been.

Thats why when PM asked me early last year what I would like to see in an organic fertiliser if it could just be made for me, I told them what I would like to see, ratios etc, and how I thought bb were not what they had been, anyhow they came back to me a few months later, with an entirely plant derived grow and bloom. Thats where I am today, I had tried it side by side with bb grown bud all done in the same room at the same time under the same light. I was convinced that it walked all over the bb buds. So I decided to blind test to see if I was right or biased.

I picked 12 friends to test for me, I got another friend who does not partake to make 12 packs of matched buds by look/size, each bud sample marked a or b at random by the packer, and to make a list of what each was grown with and put each list in a sealed envelope with the pack number on. This meant every pack was different, ie what each sample of each type a or b was grow with also I did not know, I gave out the packs and noted who had what # pack. When each came back with their list of what they liked best or no difference for each var ie a or b and comments, we opened their envelope together.

This is how we have always tested and is as fair as I could make it to get unbiased opinions.

Sorry if this is long and boring Artificial Emotion. When rooting plants and soil first formed, plants used elements and nutrients as they were released from rocks as they broke down, those nutrients have probably been reused hundreds of millions of times over the years as plants lived and died releasing what they took up back to the developing soil, that includes every thing that eats these plants, we all go back to the soil or sea eventually as does our waste, its a natural cycle and the whole living ecology of our planet depends on it, as do we.

This is only an idea and very little research has been done as no one is interested mostly because there is no profit in it, the concept is that nutrients and minerals that plants have used before are selected by plants first above new chemicals added to the soil. Are new chemical salt fertiliser molecules identical to those that are part of the living cycle? I don’t know, but there was a little research bar what Lawrence D Hills wrote about + some of his thoughts:-

There is a clear distinction between organic and inorganic manures and fertilizers which has been established by the work of the University of Saskatchewan in Canada, reported at the 1955 Geneva Conference on the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy. Their researches showed that a wheat crop could take only 2 per cent of the phosphorus in theory available from a chemical fertilizer, but when the grain was fed to cattle and turned into manure together with the straw, the next crop took up almost all the radioactivity-tagged molecules. Just as water has light and heavy molecules, it seems that those of plant foods also vary and that roots pick out one sort, like a girl choosing all the hard centres from a box of chocolates. All the mineral molecules, even those of trace elements, in our compost heaps are 'hard centres', already root-selected and ready for immediate use. Humus of course has many physical properties, but you cannot gain the same flavour and crop quality by using peat to supply moisture-holding humus, and chemical fertilizers with it.

This is why compost and manures produce results out of all proportion to their chemical analysis, and we can therefore draw a distinction between a dried seaweed meal like Marinure with its 2 per cent nitrogen, 0.3 per cent phosphorus and 2.7 per cent potash all 'root-selected' from the sea, and wood ashes with vastly more potassium changed to an assorted batch of potassium carbonate molecules, of which only a few are usable. The best way to use the ashes from the very few bonfires that are necessary to burn hedge clippings, winter fruit tree prunings, rose and shrub prunings and sawn-off branches, is in the compost heap.

Many gardeners are chain bonfire smokers, burning their own money by wasting good humus and plant foods and buying peat and chemical fertilizers to replace them

I personally think there is more to this than may meet the eye.

Edited to add, the quote comes from Grow your own fruit and vegetables I first bought in 1971. I met Lawrence many times, he inspired me to find out more, to question how modern agriculture uses the land, he had more knowledge about organics than I can ever hope to learn.

Share this post


Link to post

in the end its down to personal preference like most things related with growing . You find what works for you imo , people will always have opinions and tell you their way is the best way and all others fail in comparison.

So now thats sorted , my weed tastes the best lol

lol

Edited by Poppa_Smurf

Share this post


Link to post
Sorry if this is long and boring Artificial Emotion. When rooting plants and soil first formed, plants used elements and nutrients as they were released from rocks as they broke down, those nutrients have probably been reused hundreds of millions of times over the years as plants lived and died releasing what they took up back to the developing soil, that includes every thing that eats these plants, we all go back to the soil or sea eventually as does our waste, its a natural cycle and the whole living ecology of our planet depends on it, as do we.

This is only an idea and very little research has been done as no one is interested mostly because there is no profit in it, the concept is that nutrients and minerals that plants have used before are selected by plants first above new chemicals added to the soil. Are new chemical salt fertiliser molecules identical to those that are part of the living cycle? I don’t know, but there was a little research bar what Lawrence D Hills wrote about + some of his thoughts:-

There is a clear distinction between organic and inorganic manures and fertilizers which has been established by the work of the University of Saskatchewan in Canada, reported at the 1955 Geneva Conference on the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy. Their researches showed that a wheat crop could take only 2 per cent of the phosphorus in theory available from a chemical fertilizer, but when the grain was fed to cattle and turned into manure together with the straw, the next crop took up almost all the radioactivity-tagged molecules. Just as water has light and heavy molecules, it seems that those of plant foods also vary and that roots pick out one sort, like a girl choosing all the hard centres from a box of chocolates. All the mineral molecules, even those of trace elements, in our compost heaps are 'hard centres', already root-selected and ready for immediate use. Humus of course has many physical properties, but you cannot gain the same flavour and crop quality by using peat to supply moisture-holding humus, and chemical fertilizers with it.

This is why compost and manures produce results out of all proportion to their chemical analysis, and we can therefore draw a distinction between a dried seaweed meal like Marinure with its 2 per cent nitrogen, 0.3 per cent phosphorus and 2.7 per cent potash all 'root-selected' from the sea, and wood ashes with vastly more potassium changed to an assorted batch of potassium carbonate molecules, of which only a few are usable. The best way to use the ashes from the very few bonfires that are necessary to burn hedge clippings, winter fruit tree prunings, rose and shrub prunings and sawn-off branches, is in the compost heap.

Many gardeners are chain bonfire smokers, burning their own money by wasting good humus and plant foods and buying peat and chemical fertilizers to replace them

I personally think there is more to this than may meet the eye.

Edited to add, the quote comes from Grow your own fruit and vegetables I first bought in 1971. I met Lawrence many times, he inspired me to find out more, to question how modern agriculture uses the land, he had more knowledge about organics than I can ever hope to learn.

Is this what is meant by 'immediately accessible nutes in the PM OT1 grow and bloom??

e2a Ive not tasted the results from the PM organic range , but I can say Ive noticed an impressive boost to growth in comparison to the bb gro,bloom , and fishmix

Edited by ramblingmadman

Share this post


Link to post
e2a Ive not tasted the results from the PM organic range , but I can say Ive noticed an impressive boost to growth in comparison to the bb gro,bloom , and fishmix

Some of the nutrients are in a RTU form and can be taken/absorbed by both roots and via foliage as they are, the rest are in forms easy for the microbes to break down and use steadily over a few days or so, think of it as the difference between eating pure sugar verses a pasta meal of the same calorific value, one is absorbed rapidly giving a short large peak of energy the latter is metabolised steadily over a much longer period of time keeping the system functioning steadily. It will also encourage and nurture a living micro heard to colonise the root medium/compost.

I look forward to hearing what you think of the final taste.

Share this post


Link to post

That's fascinating OT1. I was wondering, is it not possible to extract these plant-selected minerals and nutrients that are part of the natural cycle that the plant would prefer to use in preferrence to the synthetic mineral salt chemical fertilizers used in hydro and non-organic compost media?

Edit: I didn't see the post above. I suppose it is therefore possible! But could these ready to use nutrients be dissolved in water and used in hydro?

Edited by Artificial Emotion

Share this post


Link to post

Well you learn something every day :rofl: this thread developing nicely i am rooted myself now

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now