• 🇳🇿 🇲🇲 🇯🇵 🇨🇳 🇦🇺 🇦🇶 🇮🇳
    Australian & Asian
    Drug Discussion


    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • AADD Moderators: swilow | Vagabond696

Chems in hydro causing psychoses

On the issue of cannabis being stronger these days compared to the 60-70s there are a lot of urban myths floating around. A report out of Europe on cannabis potency here: http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/?nnodeid=429
States that there has not been a significant increase in potency over this period.

The national Drug and Alcohol Research Centre in Australia are currently exploring some of these urban myths regarding hydro vs bush potency. Trying to ascertain whether growers do some of the above mentioned things when growing.

As far as the issue of psychosis and hydro, there has not been a significant increase in levels of psychosis across the population from the 60s up until the present. If there was, maybe we could speculate that there is some factor, possibly hydro that may be a cause in that increase. That's not to say that some individuals may experience a cannabis related, drug induced psychosis.
 
Flexistentialist said:
Are you trying to say that cannabis induced psychosis doesn't exist?

Yes.

For every one person in a mental institution who claims Cannabis made him insane, you have 99 people who say their mother did it, or their father, or their job, or stress.

Someone who is "predisposed" to schizophrenia could be smoking Cannabis for 3 years, one day they have a psychotic episode, and automatically it is blamed on Cannabis?

Why not what they eat for breakfast in the morning, or drinking history, or other drugs, or many other factors?

People with a predisposition to psychosis are prone to have psychotic episodes period.

Blaming it on Cannabis is arbitrary at best.

Saying Cannabis can cause psychosis because some people who smoke it and are predisposed to psychosis end up flipping out is ridiculous.

Some people who are "predisposed" to psychotic episodes will go into psychotic episodes if they watch The X Files, or get into a fight with their sister.

Are you trying to say sister induced psychosis doesn't exist?
 
Last edited:
Then you need to visit a psych ward.

The issue I raised originally wasn't a dig at pot. It was a dig at the methods of growing it. There is a school of thought (that I tend to agree with) that current hydro methods of "grow it quick and get it out" mean that a lot of chemicals/nutrients that are pumped through the plant don't have time to flush out properly. 3m tall plants don't grow in cupboards.

IMHO there's been a massive shift away from 'naturally' grown cannabis in forests, etc since police surveillance got a lot better (aerial photos, etc) to hidden hydro set-ups in homes, basements, etc. Those plants grew naturally without needing to be force feed nutrients. The school of thought I've read that makes sense to me is that over time the nutrients/chemicals build up in the smoker's system.

Maybe its an old jaded smoker school of thought (back in my day...) and I'm happy to be proven wrong, but having had several long conversations with someone who has actually noticed an increase in mental health issues, and researched the background, it does make sense to me.
 
Like I said, why don't tobacco smokers go insane?

I am a big fan of organic growing.

Even hydro setups I have done used organic hydroponic nutrients (yes, they do exist, OMRI certified and all).

Chemical nutrients kill beneficial microbes, eventually they build up in the soil and cause over fertilization, requiring flushing (pain in the ass), and they are much easier to over do and kill your plant.

They are also harmful to the enviroment if they get in creeks etc.

I am all for organics all the way, they can grow herb just as potent as synthetic fertilizers, and many people grow organically in compost indoors under lights.

Most of the biggest indoor busts ever made have been soil grows.

I can't say I think synthetic fertilizers will make you crazy though, if that was the case we would be seeing an insane increase in crazy people.

You also have to remember more people are actually getting treatment today than ever.

So it doesn't necessarily mean more people are going crazy, just that more people are getting treatment, and being recorded.
 
In the interests of harm reduction all of the above are relevant and support the argument why governments should regulate and control the production of cannabis. Creating quality control measures as we do with alcohol and other legal drugs. I dream of the day when an individual can walk into a coffee shop, like the dutch model, and purchase a small amount of cannabis with no fear of additives etc.

On the issue of psychosis, it is really important to factor in drug, set and setting when considering this issue. I once knew of a young woman with a 10 year history of cannabis use. As she put it, her morning ritual was coffee and cones. She had no problems over this 10 year period of heavy hydro cannabis use. No surprises.

She came to my attention after she was admitted to a psych unit following a 'drug induced psychosis', the label the psych unit gave her. Upon asking a few questions she described her 'experience' to me by saying, she got up, had her coffee and cones for breakfast and proceeded to have her morning shower, where she had a major psychotic episode. The shower walls started to melt, she heard things and completely lost the plot running out naked and accusing her flatmates of putting DMT in her cones. She had smoked the same cannabis over the last few weeks with no problems.

Upon exploring what else was going on for her, she stated that she was going through a major breakup with her boy friend of 7 years and that she had not had a good sleep in weeks. It was clearly obvious that she had an enormous amount of stress happening in her life. Experiments with sleep deprivation show that individuals will experience psychotic episodes if deprived of sleep amongst other things. It is quite feasible to assume that the combination of these "other issues" with her cannabis use on that day pushed her over the edge. Effectively the straw that broke the camels back. Clearly cannabis use does not happen in isolation.
 
lurkerguy said:
Like I said, why don't tobacco smokers go insane?

I wasn't aware that tobacco is commercially grown through hydroponics??

The other point you might have missed is that growers don't really want the stuff lying around that long, so as soon as its reached their ideal height its pulled and packed. Tobacco growers aren't in such a rush as they're allowed to have it.
 
There's plenty of people in psych units because of pot.

Then why didn't this occur years ago, say in the seventies when virtually everyone I knew smoked pot - and for the first few years this was the famed Thai sticks, easily as powerful as todays best dope? None of the people I knew back then had mental health problems or bouts of psychosis as are typically reported today. Some were slightly paranoid, some were a tad lazy and some became rather obsessed with the subject of marijuana. But none I knew ended up in psych wards. 30 years later and those I'm still in contact with have led normal, successful and happy lives.

To further reinforce this claim, we had one of the largest psych hospitals in NZ, on the edge of our town. There were lots of drug related admissions, but these were never reported to be cannabis related. Usually they related to pharms, heroin use or the occasional acid trip gone fuzzy. Checking with my friend who's father was head psychiatrist at the hospital, he said he can't off hand remember any admissions based solely on marijuana use. While it's not necessarily completely accurate, it does tend to indicate that if there were marijuana related admissions, these were few and far between.

So, if cannabis is the culprit in these mental health problems, and underlying conditions are not to blame, then we have to ask ourselves what is different today.

To say hydro is more potent than well grown bush is incorrect. I've witnessed hydro users completely "maggoted" on bush and there's many an experienced smoker who will tell you that good bush is equally potent if not more so. So I don't think that's a proven argument. One article I saw a couple of years ago reported that THC tests on hydro and outdoor grown varieties concluded there was no significant difference in THC content.

So what's different today? Perhaps it all has to do with the frequency of use. As I said in another thread ( Jan of this year) in our smoking dayz of the late 70s, we didn't smoke all day everyday. We smoked on the weekends and at night, but as a rule, never during working hours. We didn't use being stoned as an excuse for being slack and we were convinced that dope should improve your actions and thoughts, not be a cop out for not getting things done. Perhaps this attitude made all the difference? Who knows, but one thing I've observed over the years since then, is that many people do regard getting stoned as a cop out - an excuse for doing nothing.

We did our best to integrate with "normal society" even if we did have long hair, dressed in hippy clothes and smelled like patchouli. We certainly didn't regard ourselves as hopeless outcasts because we liked to smoke dope. All I can say is that attitude from pot smokers today possibly reflects a far greater social ill; a sense of hopelessness from todays youth - a kind of "what's the point...it's all gone Pete Tong" view of things.



Looking at possible mineral variation in plants grown hydroponically compared to outdoors; most plants have potential to take-up alternative, sometimes toxic minerals if they are present in the growing medium. It's therefore quite reasonable to expect that hydro strains could contain higher amounts of trace elements such as Cd, Co, Mo and Se, if these were present in the nutrients used, and also the nitrate ion (NO3 -) which is often present in high concentrations in irrigated systems. NO3- can be taken up in larger amounts by leafy crops.

Of the trace minerals mentioned, molybdenum cobalt and selenium are considered possible concerns as they are present in trace element plant foods, albeit in small amounts. However, these elements can be accumulated in animals. Perhaps higher nitrate levels could cause problems, or maybe combinations of minerals and nitrates could pose additional health risks to those smoking hydro?

This is all very speculative on my part and could very well have little to no effect on smokers, but IMO it's worth noting these possibilities, remote as they may be.
 
Bent Mk2 said:
I wasn't aware that tobacco is commercially grown through hydroponics??

The other point you might have missed is that growers don't really want the stuff lying around that long, so as soon as its reached their ideal height its pulled and packed. Tobacco growers aren't in such a rush as they're allowed to have it.

Tobacco is commercially grown with the most toxic and horrible chemical fertilizers available, and it is rarely if ever flushed.

You need gas masks to work with the fertilizer they use to grow tobacco, anhydrous ammonia etc.

[EDIT:Keep it on topic and the pictures out. 2nd time. Lil Angel15]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Health and Psychological Effects of Cannabis use - 2nd Edition Monograph Series No. 44 (PDF 610 KB)

http://www.health.gov.au/internet/wcms/publishing.nsf/Content/5A648B4BA51D4891CA25703400033ED6/$File/mono44.pdf


A interesting read that dispels many of todays myths regarding cannabis.
 
BTW, two different crops; say tobacco and cannabis, even if grown under identical conditions, may after havest contain substantially different levels of micro nutrients and/or heavy metals.
 
I think it's basically how much it is used. As I was told my someone nopw in their 50's or 60's, No one smoked pot all day every day back in the 70's, it was basically unheard of. I think tobacco also has a lot to do with it. They say pot psychosis causes violence, but the only people I know that go schizo and start bashing shit when they're out of mull is the ones that smoke all day every day and mix with tobacco. When they run out they'rer not just running out of pot, they're running out of two drugs. Most pot addicts I know won't even smoke weed straight if they were out and finally got a b ud, they'll go through the ashtray and use a bumper to spin the weed with.

Everyday pot use leads to a very clouded mind, which leads to lazy thoughts, and shortcuts in thinking, which can lead to delusions long-term. Most pot addicts will never hear a voice unless they are prone to schizophrenia, but they will get angry over not having bud, their emotions will go messy, they will think stupid shit and they will build up a set of beliefs they either keep re-inforcing which each session whic can sometiems be very delusional.

Speed psychosis is where the real shit comes out, and mixed with weed.. that is a terrible combo and is often the case of speed abusers, and the doctor will blame marijuana in most cases.
 
Radioactive tobacco
by David Malmo-Levine (02 Jan, 2002)

It's not tobacco's tar which kills, but the radiation!

Cannabis is often compared to tobacco, with the damage caused by smoking tobacco given as a reason to prohibit use of cannabis. Yet most of the harms caused by tobacco use are due not to tar, but to the use of radioactive fertilizers. Surprisingly, radiation seems to be the most dangerous and important factor behind tobacco lung damage.

Radioactive fertilizer

It's a well established but little known fact that commercially grown tobacco is contaminated with radiation. The major source of this radiation is phosphate fertilizer.1 The big tobacco companies all use chemical phosphate fertilizer, which is high in radioactive metals, year after year on the same soil. These metals build up in the soil, attach themselves to the resinous tobacco leaf and ride tobacco trichomes in tobacco smoke, gathering in small "hot spots" in the small-air passageways of the lungs.2 Tobacco is especially effective at absorbing radioactive elements from phosphate fertilizers, and also from naturally occurring radiation in the soil, air, and water.3

To grow what the tobacco industry calls "more flavorful" tobacco, US farmers use high-phosphate fertilizers. The phosphate is taken from a rock mineral, apatite, that is ground into powder, dissolved in acid and further processed. Apatite rock also contains radium, and the radioactive elements lead 210 and polonium 210. The radioactivity of common chemical fertilizer can be verified with a Geiger-Mueller counter and an open sack of everyday 13-13-13 type of fertilizer (or any other chemical fertilizer high in phosphate content).4

Conservative estimates put the level of radiation absorbed by a pack-and-a-half a day smoker at the equivalent of 300 chest X-rays every year.5 The Office of Radiation, Chemical & Biological Safety at Michigan State University reports that the radiation level for the same smoker was as high as 800 chest X-rays per year.6 Another report argues that a typical nicotine user might be getting the equivalent of almost 22,000 chest X-rays per year.7

US Surgeon General C Everett Koop stated on national television in 1990 that tobacco radiation is probably responsible for 90% of tobacco-related cancer.8 Dr RT Ravenholt, former director of World Health Surveys at the Centers for Disease Control, has stated that "Americans are exposed to far more radiation from tobacco smoke than from any other source."9

Researchers have induced cancer in animal test subjects that inhaled polonium 210, but were unable to cause cancer through the inhalation of any of the non-radioactive chemical carcinogens found in tobacco.10 The most potent non-radioactive chemical, benzopyrene, exists in cigarettes in amounts sufficient to account for only 1% of the cancer found in smokers.9

Smoke screen

Surprisingly, the US National Cancer Institute, with an annual budget of $500 million, has no active grants for research on radiation as a cause of lung cancer.1

Tobacco smoking has been popular for centuries,11 but lung cancer rates have only increased significantly after the 1930's.12 In 1930 the lung cancer death rate for white US males was 3.8 per 100,000 people. By 1956 the rate had increased almost tenfold, to 31 per 100,000.13 Between 1938 and 1960, the level of polonium 210 in American tobacco tripled, commensurate with the increased use of chemical fertilizers.14

Publicly available internal memos of tobacco giant Philip Morris indicate that the tobacco corporation was well aware of radiation contamination in 1974, and that they had means to remove polonium from tobacco in 1980, by using ammonium phosphate as a fertilizer, instead of calcium phosphate. One memo describes switching to ammonium phosphate as a "valid but expensive point."15

Attorney Amos Hausner, son of the prosecutor who sent Nazi Adolf Eichmann to the gallows, is using these memos as evidence to fight the biggest lawsuit in Israel's history, to make one Israeli and six US tobacco companies pay up to $8 billion for allegedly poisoning Israelis with radioactive cigarettes.16

The radioactive elements in phosphate fertilizers also make their way into our food and drink. Many food products, especially nuts, fruits, and leafy plants like tobacco absorb radioactive elements from the soil, and concentrate them within themselves.17

The fluorosilicic acid used to make the "fluoridated water" most of us get from our taps is made from various fluorine gases captured in pollution scrubbers during the manufacture of phosphate fertilizers. This fluoride solution put into our water for "strong teeth" also contains radioactive elements from the phosphate extraction.18

Although eating and drinking radioactive products is not beneficial, the most harmful and direct way to consume these elements is through smoking them.19

The unnecessary radiation delivered from soil-damaging, synthetic chemical fertilizers can easily be reduced through the use of alternative phosphate sources including organic fertilizers.20 In one test, an organic fertilizer appeared to emit less alpha radiation than a chemical fertilizer.21 More tests are needed to confirm this vital bit of harm-reduction information.

Organic fertilizers such as organic vegetable compost, animal manure, wood ash and seaweed have proven to be sustainable and non-harmful to microbes, worms, farmers and eaters or smokers. Chemical phosphates may seem like a bargain compared to natural phosphorous, until you factor in the health and environmental costs.

To ensure that cannabis remains the safest way to get high, we must always use organic fertilizers and non-toxic pesticides. We should also properly cure the buds, take advantage of high-potency breeding and use smart-smoking devices like vaporizers and double-chambered glass water bongs. These will all help to address concern over potential lung damage far more effectively than either a jail cell or a 12-step program.

Tobacco smokers can also use this information to avoid radioactive brands of tobacco. American Spirit is one of a few companies that offers an organic line of cigarettes, and organic cigars are also available from a few companies. You can also grow your own tobacco, which is surprisingly easy and fun.

Until the public has an accurate understanding of how phosphate fertilizers carry radiation, and why commercial tobacco causes lung cancer but cannabis does not, there will be many needless tobacco-related deaths, and increased resistance to the full legalization of marijuana.


References

1. Winters, TH and Franza, JR. 'Radioactivity in Cigarette Smoke,' New England Journal of Medicine, 1982. 306(6): 364-365, web
2. Edward A Martell, PhD. 'Letter to the Editor,' New England Journal of Medicine, 1982. 307(5): 309-313, web
3. Ponte, Lowell. 'Radioactivity: The New-Found Danger in Cigarettes,' Reader's Digest, March 1986. pp. 123-127.
4. Kilthau, GF. 'Cancer risk in relation to radioactivity in tobacco,' Radiologic Technology, Vol 67, January 11, 1996, web
5. Maryland Department of Health & Mental Hygiene. Website, 2001, web
6. Office of Environmental Health and Safety, Utah State University. 'Cigarettes are a Major Source of Radiation Exposure,' Safety Line, Issue 33, Fall 1996, web
7. Nursing & Allied Healthweek, 1996,
8. Herer, Jack. The Emperor Wears No Clothes, 11th edition, 1998. p. 110, web
9. Litwak, Mark. 'Would You Still Rather Fight Than Switch?' Whole Life Times, April/May, 1985. pp 11, web
10. Yuille, CL; Berke, HL; Hull, T. 'Lung cancer following Pb210 inhalation in rats.' Radiation Res, 1967. 31:760-774.
11. Borio, Gene. Tobacco Timeline. Website, 2001, web
12. Taylor, Peter. The Smoke Ring. Pantheon Books, NY, 1984. pp. 2-3, web
13. Smith, Lendon, MD. 'There Ought to Be a Law,' Chiroweb.com, November 20, 1992, web
14. Marmorstein, J. 'Lung cancer: is the increasing incidence due to radioactive polonium in cigarettes?' South Medical Journal, February 1986. 79(2):145-50, web
15. Phillip Morris internal memo, April 2 1980. Available online at www.pmdocs.com, web
16. Goldin, Megan. "'Radioactive' cigarettes cited in Israeli lawsuit." Reuters, June 23, 2000.
17. Health Physics Society, 'Naturally occuring radioactive materials factsheet,' 1997. see also: Watters, RL. Hansen, WR. 'The hazards implication of the transfer of unsupported 210 Po from alkaline soil to plants,' Health Physics Journal, April 1970. 18(4):409-13, web and web
18. Glasser, George. 'Fluoride and the phosphate connection.' Earth Island Journal, earthisland.org, web
19. Watson, AP. 'Polonium-210 and Lead-210 in Food and Tobacco Products: A Review of Parameters and an Estimate of Potential Exposure and Dose.' Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 1983. Florida Institute of Phosphate Research.
20. Burnett, William; Schultz, Michael; Hull, Carter. 'Behavior of Radionuclides During Ammonocarbonation of Phosphogypsum.' Florida State University, Florida Institute of Phosphate Research. March, 1995, web
21. Hornby, Paul, Dr. Personal communication, 2001.


• David Malmo-Levine: email [email protected]
• American Spirit: 1-800-332-5595; web www.nascigs.com
http://www.acsa2000.net/HealthAlert/radioactive_tobacco.html
 
I think what phase dancer says about attitudes is a good point. I would like to add that in the seventies smoking pot was not considered to be bad or something that you shouldn't do. When I was a teenager in the 90s smoking pot was considered to be a deviant thing to do and therefore individuals would have to disguise or hide they're use which probably led to more paranoia. This change in attitude by society led to this change in attitude from the smokers which has (maybe) led to increased rates of psychosis.
 
Last edited:
I personally prefer to smoke outdoor weed and nowadays only do so irregulary. I have acess to a strain that is very mild (as well as other stronger ones). In the past I have had problems with all sorts of delusional thinking and depression which coupled with heavy pot smoking caused me all sorts of strife. Now I dont have any of that stuff going on but I do find that sometimes if things in my life start to go awry and I have smoked a bit in the recent past I will start to get those thoughts and feelings again, much more so than if I havent been smoking. This is the same for outdoors and hydros but I think it gets worse the more wasted I get.

Interesting stuff about the trace elements pd. Wouldnt it be possible that soils manures and composts could also contain these minerals? I know that the outdoor stuff that I smoke is grown using a combination of organics and nutrient solutions but Im not sure if the nutrients contain those trace elements
 
interesting read guys and gals.....i agree totally that if cannabis or nearly any other drug on the market is misused or abused it can either cause or bring out symptoms of mental illness,but i think to try and blame it on sprays and nutrients(or hydro) is absolute crap!i think that a more likely theory would be the relative ease of availibility of harder drugs such as heroin,ecstacy,methamphetamine etc nowadays in comparison to the 60s or 70s when these drugs werent aaround or werent a viable option....add these harder drugs + daily marijuana use for todays youth and i think that would = a higher amount of mental illness!
We also live in a far more stressful society etc nowadays....
just my 2cents.....
 
lurkerguy said:
Someone who is "predisposed" to schizophrenia could be smoking Cannabis for 3 years, one day they have a psychotic episode, and automatically it is blamed on Cannabis?
I agree that blaming cannabis as the reason for a psychotic outbreak would be scapegoating. But I wouldn't deny that it's use could be a catalyst for those predisposed to mental illness, and i'd say the same goes for most/all psychadelics.

In regards to the "Radioactive tobacco" article you posted, is it not true that synthetic phosphates are also often used in the growing of cannabis?

phase_dancer said:
To say hydro is more potent than well grown bush is incorrect. I've witnessed hydro users completely "maggoted" on bush and there's many an experienced smoker who will tell you that good bush is equally potent if not more so. So I don't think that's a proven argument. One article I saw a couple of years ago reported that THC tests on hydro and outdoor grown varieties concluded there was no significant difference in THC content.
Would you still know the whereabouts of that article?

I agree with others that you've raised a good point on attitudes to cannabis smoking. It's just unfortunate the subject is difficult to evaluate.

Anyway, I don't like the term "bush" (even though I used it in my first post), as it's often categorised as "anything that's not hydro", when really it should mean the stuff grown in soil, outdoors.

That said, under ideal conditions, i'd prefer to grow outdoors over an indoor soil/potting mix or hydro setup. However, since I live in Sydney, it is practically impossible to have ideal conditions for an outdoor grow. For example, the unavoidable, inconsistent sunlight, and the uncontrollable weather (particularly the strong winds and heavy rain - sometimes hail - at this time of year). It's for these reasons that the controlled environment of any indoor setup will often produce a superior product, given the same cannabis genetics and skill level of the grower.

One thing i'm still far from convinced about is the process of flushing. I've yet to see any evidence of any benefits from flushing that can't be achieved without proper growing and drying/curing techniques.

justsayknow said:
Interesting stuff about the trace elements pd. Wouldnt it be possible that soils manures and composts could also contain these minerals? I know that the outdoor stuff that I smoke is grown using a combination of organics and nutrient solutions but Im not sure if the nutrients contain those trace elements
At least molybdenum and cobalt can be present in organic fertilisers, but i'm not sure about the others. I think the concern with hydro ferts comes from the fact that hydro is a far more sensitive medium than soil, meaning there's much less room for error, since the soil can act as a buffer of sorts.
 
To ensure that cannabis remains the safest way to get high, we must always use organic fertilizers and non-toxic pesticides. We should also properly cure the buds, take advantage of high-potency breeding and use smart-smoking devices like vaporizers and double-chambered glass water bongs. These will all help to address concern over potential lung damage far more effectively than either a jail cell or a 12-step program.

Tobacco smokers can also use this information to avoid radioactive brands of tobacco. American Spirit is one of a few companies that offers an organic line of cigarettes, and organic cigars are also available from a few companies. You can also grow your own tobacco, which is surprisingly easy and fun.

Either way, it won't make you go crazy.

The real danger is the insanely large amounts of chemical fertilizers tobacco growers use, and the fact that they use the same soil for decades, creating a dangerously large build up.

Plus, most Cannabis users don't smoke 10-20 joints a day, but many smokers consume 20+ cigarettes a day.
 
harder drugs + daily marijuana use

Despite what governments and parents have been saying for years, smoking marijuana doesn't necessarily lead to harder drugs, so I don't think you can attribute higher reported cases of mental illness necessarily just to poly-drug use.

Daily use alone is probably one hell of a good reason for the increase alone.
 
Many people who smoke Cannabis also use harder drugs.

Not that it leads to harder drugs, just saying many people choose to use both.

Also, I am sure many Cannabis users also drink, and many probably have a poor diet.

If you are predisposed to psychotic episodes, I have no problem saying you should avoid Cannabis.

You should also avoid alcohol, fighting, or any kind of stressful activities.
 
Wouldnt it be possible that soils manures and composts could also contain these minerals?

Sure, including others such as cadmium, lead salts and arsenic which once used extensively around this area in farming. Soils high in zinc usually also contain high levels of naturally occurring cadmium.

Trace element mixes are also frequently added to deficient soils, and soils of this nature; whether from previous depletion or simply because of natural deficiency.

A problem associated with irrigated systems is that water and nutrients are often recycled and with that concentration can occur, which, along with pH may significantly alter the take up potential of plants for different minerals.
 
Top