6 years of Cannabis Cultivation & Science Podcasts - Highlights

[@ChadWestport]

This is a fantastic episode that touches many important topics. Thank you for the recap and for six years of continued podcasts.

[@kisorganics]

Thanks Chad, appreciate you!

[@505_chill_official]

This was an awesome crash course of useful information especially for anyone getting into this. Love it Tad!

[@perplexingpebbles]

Two minutes you already, had my attention. Well played

[@thesmokinmuskokan705]

This must have taken a while to put together! So much great info, thanks!

[@SmokinSkillerz]

Your work here is a blessing for the community. The knowledge to be gained from these podcasts and your guests is invaluable.

[@thinkchair96]

Thanks sir.

[@fuzzybunny4407]

Love how you give credit to those you've learned from. Thank you for this and for all the information you've given the community.

[@Alpengrower]

i must have seen %95 of your videos, thanks for providing such good information!

[@joncraven5315]

Great episode Tad! Thank you for all everything you put together for everyone. Would like to see/hear an EOY special every year. Covering any major science breakthroughs, KIS developments and other relevant topics.

[@kisorganics]

Thanks for the idea, I'll definitely give it some thought!

[@happyday.mjohnson]

Excellent episode for many reasons. For me, your focus on the amazing people you have learned from along your way allows us to explore each person's work in more detail. Each person worthy of a rabbit hole of exploring their own learnings in more depth. I am currently in a Clackamous Coot rabbit hole. WOW. What a terrific person. He takes that next curious step that I witness Brandon Hudson always sharing. As I dig deeper, one thing he discusses is the benefits of Diastatic Malt as a soil amendment. And how there is all this barley in the PNW. If I recall, he noted - Diastatic malt has over 360 different enzymes and approximately 50 identifiable strains of fungi and over 200 identifiable strains of bacteria. What is your take on Diastatic Malt as a soil amendment? Thank you.

[@kisorganics]

I ran some trials with malted barley years ago in our tomato greenhouse and didn't get a significant plant response. That being said, many growers swear by the use of malted barley. I haven't seen any real research on the subject in relation to plants, so I typically default to telling folks to try it out in their environment and see if they notice a difference. The good thing about it is that it's very affordable and not very time consuming, so it's an easy experiment.

[@Spencer_Plant_Projects]

The argument against biomimicry/natural systems is only true in an extremely rigid interpretation of the concept. If your belief is that ag js completely unnatural so any suggestion based on "natural" approaches isn't applicable is just as fraught as those who cling to "natural" as the only approach and spurn conventional approaches.

[@kisorganics]

I think the context is to evaluate a principle, technique, or concept outside of just whether or not it occurs in Nature, or the idea of "What would Mother Nature do." I believe I say it in the talk, but I do think that many concepts that occur naturally are quite beneficial and good cultural practices. But basing an agronomic decision on whether is happens in Nature or not is short-sided in my opinion and that's what Lee Briese articulates better in his podcast. I hope that better clarifies things.

[@Spencer_Plant_Projects]

Agreed. Though I would still argue natural systems are still worth comparing to conventional agronomy. For example the negative effects of applying conventional fertilizers with large salt indexes in a huge bolus as is often done is improved by the application of various carbon sources alongside. Clearly this idea comes from, at least in part, examining the ratio of C:N in nature. Similarly, research also supports that smaller regular fertilization is better than bolus fertilization. Again, it's clear to me that this idea is to move towards how fertility works in a natural system. While neither are "natural", these concepts are at least in part meant to align conventional approaches such that they are not completely working against natural existing systems of nature. Just my $0.02 love the podcast.

[@kisorganics]

@@Spencer_Plant_Projects appreciate the discussion. I'm not sure the concept of carbon based fertilizer efficiency came from looking at C:N ratios in nature. Can you send me links to that? I do agree that greater frequency and lower application rates in general are better when possible (it's always a labor/cost analysis). Some of our "best practices" in agriculture or horticulture are similar to what happens in nature, but my point (and I think Lee's as well) is that we need a better standard or metric to evaluate whether or not we should be doing something than if it occurs in nature. We should be looking at if it increases yield, plant health, reduces disease, improves soil health, etc....first and foremost and then if it happens to fall into the framework of biomimicry or soilfoodweb then that's great, but it should be the ruler or standard for our decision making process, but rather than should be data and research driven. Basically, science should be agnostic and not based around any methodology or theory. Does that make sense?

[@Spencer_Plant_Projects]

@@kisorganics yeah that makes sense but I guess it's just not as impactful of a distinction for me. I specifically see where you're coming from with the dogmatic aspects of the soil food web school of thought, though. See the review article "Carbon-Based Slow-Release Fertilizers for Efficient Nutrient Management" I think C:N ratio is so fundamental in soil science and ecology that it's never mentioned in the way you are asking but is constantly referenced as the a high level indicator that has a lot baked into it. It's a stretch for me to think that scientists investigating carbon sources for agronomic purposes such as fertilizer use efficiency had a completely naive approach when deciding to pursue studies on biochar or humic substance application. To me it seems almost implausible that given the education required to get to academia scientists wouldn't be exposed to a class or a paper where they talk about how carbon and nitrogen cycle differently in different ecosystems based on the C:N ratio. Nothing in biological/natural sciences (including agronomy) is properly contextualized or really makes sense unless it's in light of ecology or evolution regardless of how abstracted from "nature" it is.

[@Spencer_Plant_Projects]

@@kisorganics yeah I understand the point you're trying to make now. Obsessing over the purity of what "natural" means and becoming dogmatic about it is a big issue. I do however, think that nothing in the natural sciences (i would include agronomy in this) is properly contextualized except in light of ecology and evolution. As a scientist myself I think the bar you set that science should be agnostic and not based around a methodology or theory is extremely high and idealistic as well as a bit conflicting with the sentence prior. As far as I know most science IS based on methodology and theory and ideally it's looked at in the context of the things you mentioned. Controlled environment agriculture or conventional ag is still largely controlled by ecological and evolutionary principles (nutrient cycling/fertilizer use efficiency and pest pressure are obvious ones) so I don't think its inappropriate at all to bias towards looking at natural systems as a guide to drive research and ag approaches. Your point is valid though, because there are other factors that make "biomimicry" approaches unfeasible (cost, complexity) and should be evaluated as such. As for the C:N part... see the Review: Carbon-Based Slow-Release Fertilizers for Efficient Nutrient Management section 5.2.3. The authors don't even bother to cite "The C:N ratio has a critical effect on the mobility of N in the soil" because C:N is such a ubiquitous concept in ecology and soil sciences. I find it hard to believe that someone who was educated in the field to the level of publishing academic papers never was exposed to the concept that C:N ratios having a strong impact on how labile nitrogen is in a particular ecosystem.