Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Coco peat


Recommended Posts

Taz, as white cluster already pointed out whether its organic or inorganic really has nothing to do with it.  And people do run organic hydro systems.

I am fully aware that people have been using organic nutrients for a long time, I used them myself long before you looked at growing your own pot, this topic is about an organic media and is really of most interest for people in states like WA that discriminate between hydro and soil.

 

Somehow I don't think you'd get ver fary with it, don't you agree?
No I certainly don't, until something has been allowed or disallowed in court then there is no precedent and if there is no precedent set and hydroponics has not been defined in law where organic media is concerned then there is still room for debate on the subject. The main subject that I put up for debate is basically whether an organic media is going to be classified as hydro media or soil by the legal system of states like WA.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taz, as white cluster already pointed out whether its organic or inorganic really has nothing to do with it.  And people do run organic hydro systems.

I am fully aware that people have been using organic nutrients for a long time, I used them myself long before you looked at growing your own pot, this topic is about an organic media and is really of most interest for people in states like WA that discriminate between hydro and soil.

 

Somehow I don't think you'd get ver fary with it, don't you agree?
No I certainly don't, until something has been allowed or disallowed in court then there is no precedent and if there is no precedent set and hydroponics has not been defined in law where organic media is concerned then there is still room for debate on the subject. The main subject that I put up for debate is basically whether an organic media is going to be classified as hydro media or soil by the legal system of states like WA.

OK cool, if you ever end up in court trying to arguing this point, let us know how it goes. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The indica/sativa thing has been argued, perhaps in the states possibly, I can't remember... it didn't take. :D They went down anyway. :( Ah well.

 

But yeah, there is no law until it is tested. A judge has to rule on law for it to be really applied, and as yet that hasn't occurred. There's no precedent for the argument, so unless you got an absolute arse for a judge at the time you'd at least be entitled to have your argument heard. Particularly if they were to charge you with hydro growing indoors... There has to be a definition of hydro as taken for the legislation really I suppose, but they may have been deliberately ambiguous to screw over growers.

 

Friend of mine brought up another point, if a "plant" is defined as living plant material with a root system, (clones which haven't rooted are considered plant material I think, until they have roots) then what would happen if you were to dry your plants, roots and all? For the period you've got the plant up drying it's still technically alive. Not too healthy, but the cells of the plant are still alive for quite a while through the growing process... but yeah, it's a plant, not dried buds... that's the worst way of putting it, but he explained it better... thoughts appreciated...

 

There has to be someone who uses for legitimate med reasons, who grows, and is busted for these laws to be tested I think. Although they could be a rec user, it wouldn't look as good. Anyway, there needs to be a test for the ridiculousness of these laws to be pointed out. Just a thought there. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hey luke I never heard of the indica/sativa defence being tested in the states. bloody hilarious ::D: but hey, if it hasn't been tested in Autralia, why not give that one a bash as well Taz? ::(:

 

but seriously, there are all sorts of defences you could mount. I think stonedas mentioned once he knew of a case where by the time the court case came around the plant material was so mouldy it couldn't actually be identified as MJ, so the dude got off. Might not of worked well if he confessed when the cops turned up. Even in seemingly hopeless situations you can help yourself by keeping your mouth shut. Believe it, no matter what the cops tell you. Take your advice from the lawyer trying to help you, not the cops trying to bust you.

 

Lawyers can come up with some neat tricks sometimes. The better and more expensive lawyer you get, the more chance you got. Unfortunately, most stoners don't seem to be able to afford good lawyers, especially personal growers.

 

I have vague thoughts of setting up a collective, kinda stoner insurance collective, where everybody contributes on a regular basis to get a bank of money together, then when someone in the collective get busted, and might be looking at serious consequences, they can actually get decent legal counsel. Something to think about anyway....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is coco peat really all that organic???

 

its processed coconut husks.

vermiculite is processed mica

perlite is processed volcanic rock

clay balls are just kiln fired clay.

even rockwool is just rocks heated to a molten mass and then spun.

think about air and water, can't get more organic than that and thats what I'm using.

 

but they are all processed. and they all cannot feed a plant. If you have to add nutrients to grow those plants than they are hydroponic even if the nutrients are 100% organic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah great, I knew I should have done this as a poll but I wanted members reasoning too. What I want to know is whether coco peat should or will be classified by the government as a hydro media or a soil, it is after all not an inert media, it will break down due to natural processes and so should be defined as a soil.

hy•dro•pon•ics    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (hdr-pnks)

n. (used with a sing. verb)

Cultivation of plants in nutrient solution rather than in soil. 

I am not arguing about how to plead in court as much what I would be charged with in the first place if I were in one of the states that differ between hydro and soil if you get busted and what the member's views are on that. Some states are heading into a lot of grey areas in their definitions of hydroponics and it would be good if we can find a way of growing in "soil" with all or most of the benefits of hydroponics and coco peat does not fit the presently recognised definitions of a hydroponics media, are state governments going to re-define hydroponics or not?

 

I do realise that I have been repeating myself here, this is not an attempt to make a record post, I am just trying to define just what the subject of this topic is for those who don't seem to understand my original post:

Webster's Dictionary Definition of Hydroponics:

Adj. Hydroponics - the growing of plants in nutrient solutions with or without an inert medium to provide mechanical support.

 

If hydroponics by definition uses an inert (inorganic) media can Coco peat (organic) be counted as a type of soil in a run to waste system? If so how would the law see it if you are in front of a magistrate charged with cultivation of your paltry 1 or 2 plants in states like WA? Is this a possible loophole or has the government covered this angle already?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah great, I knew I should have done this as a poll but I wanted members reasoning too. What I want to know is whether coco peat should or will be classified by the government as a hydro media or a soil

No on both counts IMO.

 

To start with it is a grey area whether or not coco is inert. Yes it absorbs and releases nutrients but you are still effectively feeding the plants with nutrient solution, not soil. Is this so different to a perlite/vermiculite system that wicks the nute solution to the roots? I don't think so.

 

Secondly, soil means earth, or land. That definition is quite clear. And that is certainly not coco.

 

Thirdly, coco is a manufactured product.

 

Fourthly, the wording and intent of the law is that hydro means indoor growing. This would be extremely difficult to get around, and I doubt the judge would be very interested in quotes from Webster's dictionary. Yes it is illogical, but so are all MJ laws.

 

Finally, the definition of hydroponic growing does not refer to organic or inorganic substances, rather the feeding of plants via a nute solution, which is what you are effectively doing with coco. Also coco is specifically used because it does not break down quickly, that is its main selling point, and that makes it more like a hydroponic medium than a soil.

 

Just my opinion of course, and distributed without profit for educational purposes to those who have expressed interest. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To start with it is a grey area whether or not coco is inert. Yes it absorbs and releases nutrients but you are still effectively feeding the plants with nutrient solution, not soil. Is this so different to a perlite/vermiculite system that wicks the nute solution to the roots? I don't think so.

 

Secondly, soil means earth, or land. That definition is quite clear. And that is certainly not coco.

 

Then by definition very few "soil" growers are really doing hydro too, and we could all be busted unless we use a completely soil media. i.e. a hole in the ground with no added fertilisers other than those already present in the soil itself..... If they feed their plants with artificial or organic nutrients through a nutrient solution, be it fed every time or only once a week, and these nutrients are the basis of growth in the plant, as opposed to the soil itself, then this is hydroponic growth. The "soil" most growers would buy for their grows would be potting mix yeah? Most, if not all of these, are not soil, but mixes of barks, sand and compost sometimes... They usually contain nutrients which have been added to the mix, either to the bark itself in steam impregnation or in slow release pellets. These nutrients are what are feeding the plants in the mix, not the mix itself... so really, just about anyone, according to your definitions given there pipe, unless they grow in virgin organic soil with no added nutrients other than those present biologically already, particularly not plant ready salt forms of nutrients in solution, are growing hydroponically.

 

Not trying to be an ass here or nuthin, just trying to point out the difficulties in defining what exactly is "hydroponics"... I mean, you said...

 

Fourthly, the wording and intent of the law is that hydro means indoor growing. This would be extremely difficult to get around, and I doubt the judge would be very interested in quotes from Webster's dictionary. Yes it is illogical, but so are all MJ laws.

 

Aside from the fact I'm not sure where to find the exact wording, I would have to disagree with you there. "Intent" of the law is important, and yes, it's taken into account in any judgement made in law, but the letter of the law itself has a far higher value placed on it. And unless they have specifically outlawed "indoor growing" or "hydroponics as defined as xxxxx...." then there will have to be an argument placed before the judge. Any ruling would be subject to appeal, and the further up the chain you go, the more likely of a realistic hearing you get. I know that might sound stupid, but it's true. You're more likely to strike down the laws covering mj cultivation in a much higher court than the one you'd likely be charged in, but if you are on the record as placing an argument or defense on the table, and this isn't reasonably asessed, then the court is liable to be appealed on, and most appeals of that kind of petty nature would likely succeed.

 

Hmm... The more I think about this law the more it pisses me off. They've left it deliberately ambiguous to my mind, to enable the police force to have an even greater control over the illegal industry than they already had.

 

I'd love to see a link to the law, if anyones got one... let's get the actual wording of the law in WA on the table here so to speak, before we continue abusing each other over our opinions on the true nature of "hydroponics"....

 

I think it's got FA to do with lights myself, and I'd argue that like heck if it ever went to court, but I grow hydro, so the law automatically excludes me anyway. :D Even though I actually do only grow 2 plants... :(

 

Hey pipe... mj growers union or med fund eh? Seriously tho, sounds like a good idea... maybe an independent post on that would be a good way to get things rolling... :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then by definition very few "soil" growers are really doing hydro too, and we could all be busted unless we use a completely soil media. i.e. a hole in the ground with no added fertilisers other than those already present in the soil itself..... If they feed their plants with artificial or organic nutrients through a nutrient solution, be it fed every time or only once a week, and these nutrients are the basis of growth in the plant, as opposed to the soil itself, then this is hydroponic growth. The "soil" most growers would buy for their grows would be potting mix yeah? Most, if not all of these, are not soil, but mixes of barks, sand and compost sometimes... They usually contain nutrients which have been added to the mix, either to the bark itself in steam impregnation or in slow release pellets. These nutrients are what are feeding the plants in the mix, not the mix itself... so really, just about anyone, according to your definitions given there pipe, unless they grow in virgin organic soil with no added nutrients other than those present biologically already, particularly not plant ready salt forms of nutrients in solution, are growing hydroponically.

 

not really luke. soil is soil. If you growing in it its of little relevance what you are adding to it. you can grow in soil without nutes. you can't do that in coco. that is because coco is not soil and has no nutes to offer without the right nute solution used with it. If you throw some perlite or water crystals or miracle grow into your soil, you're still growing in soil. but on that same point, I reckon potting mix in pots indoors would be classified as hydro. Again, that is intent of law, hydro = indoor based on stories of those busted. Illogical, I know, but so is convicting people for pot in the first place, and they still do that year in, year out, don't they? Makes no sense, but they do it.

 

and I am not trying to define hydro and soil growing. I am pointing out that by definition, the dictionary definition that this argument is based, coco cannot be a soil, irrispective of whether or not its inert.

 

Aside from the fact I'm not sure where to find the exact wording, I would have to disagree with you there. "Intent" of the law is important, and yes, it's taken into account in any judgement made in law, but the letter of the law itself has a far higher value placed on it. And unless they have specifically outlawed "indoor growing" or "hydroponics as defined as xxxxx...." then there will have to be an argument placed before the judge. Any ruling would be subject to appeal, and the further up the chain you go, the more likely of a realistic hearing you get. I know that might sound stupid, but it's true. You're more likely to strike down the laws covering mj cultivation in a much higher court than the one you'd likely be charged in, but if you are on the record as placing an argument or defense on the table, and this isn't reasonably asessed, then the court is liable to be appealed on, and most appeals of that kind of petty nature would likely succeed.

 

I suspect that is more an emotional opinion than a factual one.

 

Fact is coco is a unique system. You would have a very weak case trying to argue it is soil. Perhaps a stronger case would be to argue its not hydro and go no further. But either way I wouldn't like its chances of having any success.

 

I just hope neither of us ever get the opportunity to test out this argument. :mellow: :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using the community in any way you agree to our Terms of Use and We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.