Eating an average carrot from the grocery is like gnawing on a piece of softwood. It's been a while since I ate a non-organic apple from the grocery, but the last time I tasted one it was considerably less flavorful than a carrot from my garden. An apple! Even for those who have not eaten decent produce, I would think everyone knows that an apple should be way sweeter than a carrot, and yet nowadays it's common for all kinds of produce to taste the same: like nothing, at best.

Even in trendy areas, like here, where there are many small growers and farmer's markets, CSA's, etc, consumers really do not seem to require better flavor. The consequence of this is that all growers everywhere, large or small, organic or not, have zero incentive to keep their soils mineralized. A personal example:

I just tested a carrot from my garden - 10 brix, vs a carrot from my friends farm -10 brix, dead even. 10 isn't shabby for a carrot, but it can be a lot better. Thing is, my soil is a coarse sandy loam with a little silt, no clay fraction. His is a very fine silty-clayey loam, top notch stuff for soil. His produce should be way above mine but it isn't, because I mineralize and he doesn't. So long as nobody places any value on the difference he'll continue to de-mineralize because he can't afford to do otherwise.

Furthermore, some people have heightened sensory perceptions as well. DW has a sense of smell that astounds me while I can stand in a barnyard and not even really notice it. I accept that different people like different things and they may not agree with what I like. C'est la vie.

Lloyd

The combo of these things leads to a lot of bland in your common marketplace.

...that's without getting into the issue of the blandness of an ethylene ripened tomato/papaya/etc that's picked at a rock-hard green state.

We, as home gardeners, can select much better seed sources for our produce.

Btw, one of the most neglected home grown veggies (imo) is carrots. While growing non-orange carrots is quite popular in the home garden, there's a world of much sweeter (non long-storage/shipping) orange carrots out there that blow away what you can buy in most every grocery store.

Why do people put up with it?

Lloyd

Eric, my experience is that while farmer's markets (presuming they are the type that only allow growers, not re-sellers) do generally have better produce than super-markets, it isn't a lot better than typical in-season. For the most part, all growers at any scale are running out their soils and consumers simply don't seem to know it.

The home gardener generally chooses flavor over these qualities even when quickness and heavy production plays a part in selection.

Dumping a few dollars worth of nutrients in the soil isn't a burden, but getting less $$ out of each sq. foot/acre of land is a burden.

Having worked in the raspberry/blackberry breeding field for a while, I'm less than thrilled at most of the commercial selections that growers choose for market.

One of the best tasting (and absolutely stunning to grow) raspberries I've ever had, the Cortland cultivar, is not only hard to find...but rarely seen in production commercially or in the home garden. It isn't a heavy producer of fruits and it's a bit thorny...the taste, however, is "wow" with a nice tart/sweet balance. Another reason it's not very popular is it's kinda short-lived compared to other raspberries...still, it's got an awesome taste (plus appearance) and therefore great breeding stock.

Lloyd

Maybe this is a stupid question but, is there a certain type of rock dust that should be used to remineralize?

Here's the thing. The house we moved into had half the backyard as patio stones. These people really loved explanding their patio, I guess.So we've pulled up most of the expanded section and now have this HUGE pile of that fine gravel that is used underneath patio stones.

It's composed of sizes from fine gravel right down to a rock dust if I sift it.

Is this rock dust suitable to help put minerals back into the soil?

I think I'd like to keep it down to just the superfine stuff, and in future use the larger stuff over the years. Find a method of crushing the gravel at home to just keep making more dust.

That way I can just keep using this pile bit by bit over the years.

Thanks!

"It's been a while since I ate a non-organic apple from the grocery"

Just because something is organic does not say it is healthier.

There are so many factors that make organic methods work more on a small scale.

!. The fruit is fully ripened. This opens up any flavors that are potentially there.
2. Great soil that is chock full of nutrients that can bring out the best flavor that the genetics possesses.
3. The genetics is important. I raise certain melons because I get certain tastes, textures, and sweetnesses from them.

pn says, " Seriously, you have never had an apple you thought was unusually good or one that really was crap?

Well I have picked and stored apples from a certain variety that would be hooted at from the gourmets, but when picked, stored, and eaten at the best time, they are the most crisp sweet, juicy, and tasty apples I have eaten. No, I have not tasted them all [varieties] by a long shot, but I know that picking them and eating them at a certain time can bring out the very best in them.

very much so.

I also think it's a bit of a mistake to assume that many cropping systems are nutrient deficient leading to flavor issues, though some are. Not matching crop type to needed nutrients, even micro nutrients, can lead to a lack of ideal fruit size/weight...which in turn leads to less money for the grower. Many growers take care of these issues. The big/barren-looking grain (corn/wheat/etc) and soy fields are operated somewhat differently than a field growing berries, tomatoes, etc.

That said, when growing certain crops, some nutrients will be very important the development of taste. If you're growing onions in S lacking (not deficient) soils you're not going to get as "rich/strong" of a taste even if you can achieve ideal size/weight on your harvest.

Further, there is some variance in store-bought produce. A Goldrush apple will always be better than Red Delicious. In-season watermelons will be far better than out-of-season.

I was shocked to find that people in certain areas do not even know that carrots are sweet and turnips can be sweet, simply because they do not eat carrots that have been frosted. My uninformed opinion is that mineralization is not as important as picking unripe fruits, at least for the fruits.

Humans the world over intake these nutrients from food. That is, the plant does not use them but will absorb them from the soil if they are present. Because many soils are deficient in iodine, its deficiency is recognized as one of the four most important nutrient deficiencies in the world.
These are also true micronutrients, in that they are needed in microgram quantities.

Using maps found with Google, I can see that I spent most of my life in areas which are severely deficient in I and deficient to somewhat deficient in Se. In particular Michigan and the rest of the Midwest is low in Se and I is virtually absent (the Goiter Belt).

Do I eat worse than the Indians who used this land for thousands of years? Of course not. There is iodized salt, and even the grass fed beef I eat has been eating kelp supplements (kelp dramatically concentrates I) and salt lick containing Se. We will use (sparingly) flour coming from the Wheat Belt (Nebraska to Alberta), rich in Se. We buy a tub of kelp every month or so, and eat brazil nuts a few times a year. In fact, we intake far more of those micronutrients than the first Indians discovering this pristine land.

So at least for this aspect of the problem (mineralization of minerals unneeded for plant metabolism) it seems to me that soil mineralization would not work efficiently. Some day when all commerce breaks down we will be in trouble and grow large throats, or perhaps someone will discover that some algae in the Great Lakes also concentrates these heavy elements, and save us all. But there is an aspect of mineralization that does not work.

The thing about micronutrients is...1- you need proper pH for their uptake (and they're generally more available at lower pH) 2- aside from Ca/S (which some would argue are not micronutrients) you really don't need a lot of them because most crops can only use so much.

Every plant does specific things with specific nutrients unless they carry them inertly in the "water and water storage" systems in the plants.

There's more than a few companies pushing heavy applications of micronutrients and foliar sprays where it's not needed. Plus, many of the foliar spray studies they point to are omitting the fact that many of these studies are spraying gibberilins and cytokins to increase fruit sizes...doing most of the "work" over the actual micronutrients in the sprays.

Yes, some soils are micronutrient deficient and could use some help, but most people can get by this by having a good organic matter source in their soil and a slow/medium decomposing micronutrient source (or sparingly applied dissolved micronutrient mixes). Myself, I use a source of micronutrients from chemical + organic sources that I apply once every 2-3 years depending on the amount of heavy leaching rainfall over the time period.

A lot of these formulations suggest foliar spraying because 1- it sounds good 2- you get fast "results" 3- it's very hard to over-apply (and therefore harm in some cases) the micronutrient balance in the soil. It's also a very inefficient way to apply micronutrients. Your soil clays do a wonderful job holding onto these micronutrients and good organic matter mixes do a good job of supplying + helping dissolve/make-available these micronutrients.

These chelates (very) basically act like "fake clays" that give micronutrients/metals a place to bind until low acids make them plant available.

Actually, rather than saying "fake clays" I think I'd rather break this down more like a compost reaction...

When you're adding things for a compost pile to break down the quickest-to-slowest things that break down are proteins/sugars/starches...hemicellulose (basically, polysacarides and random structure/weak cellulose)...cellulose (stronger and more arranged "crystallized" structures compared to hemicellulose)...fats/waxes...and lignins (including woody stuff)...

EDDS (and other chelates) would be more akin to the proteins/sugars/starches point of decomposition in a compost pile (aka, more quickly broken down and released)...while at the same time being a very attractive source for bonding with micronutrients and metals. Unlike clays, they don't persist in the soil as a strong physical structure...they break down and degrade into other substances which no longer hold the nutrients they once contained.

Also, fwiw, many of these "miracle sprays" and amendments use EDTA, not EDDS as a chelating agent. While the end result of EDTA is technically organic...it's an organic pollutant of no use to anything in a soil or water system. It is of most concern for those using it in higher pH soils, where very little of it can be complexed with existing soils leading to leaching and runoff.

In my experience, Ca and S are assuredly macronutrients, and apparently in most humid regions of NA are deficient. They should be addressed first, and then at least an initial application of a broad-spectrum rock dust can't possibly go wrong and most likely is going to raise the nutrient value of the produce for many years, so from that perspective it dirt cheap. Then, for extreme regions with broadly impoverished soils, like florida, some of the more expensive remineralizers could be called for.

Glib, I don't doubt that what you say is correct, and is certainly why all agricultural societies must have a source of salt as a food additive.

I do supplement [my body] with a kelp supplement for iodine and though my county isn't deficient in selenium, I take a small amount of that too.

I know a lot of people are too poor to choose better even if they like the taste. And they never tasted it until recently since it's getting easier to find at least a few organic foods in bigger grocery stores.

All the chemicals and sugar and crap in the food could screw up taste too.

This is a good book-"The Truth About Organic Foods"

"Dr. Norman Borlaug, Nobel Peace Prize Winning Ag Scientist, says, "The Truth About Organic Foods gives consumers a through and straight-forward explanation of why organic foods offer no real health or safety bebefits. More importantly, Avery communicates why organic farming's lower yields and reliance on scarce organic fertilizers represents a potential threat to the world's forests, wetlands and grasslands. The book offers scientifically sound evidence that more-affordable conventional foods are healthy for families and also good stewardship of nature."

Do yourself a favor, and read Albrecht, Walters, and Kinsey instead. Just for kicks, and so you can claim to be open-minded.

Watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3CoIqpyPYY

Pat -- Italians in New York don't put up with crummy tasting produce. You'd be amazed at what you can get from a fruit and veggie stand in Manhattan! Do they send all the good stuff there or something? Also, when I first went to visit my cousins in Italy when I was a kid I was blown away by how incredibly good everything tasted -- the bread, the butter, the eggs, the chicken, not to mention the grapes, apples, and all the veggies. All this stuff was grown at home or was local. In more recent years when I've gone to visit, I've eaten from my cousins gardens and the stuff is just okay. Farmers can't trade at the local markets anymore (we used to bring eggs to trade for butter, apples to trade for cheese, stuff like that.) Now it's all centralized and controlled. And frankly, the stuff from my organic garden is much better. In the "old days" my cousins had animals and no money for fertilizer, so fertilized with manure. Now they just use chemical fertilizer. Have they wrecked even that incredible Italian soil that was once imported to California to grow grapes? At least they can still make the best ice cream in the universe.

elisa, likely your remembered tastes are at least partly right, and I wonder if there could be a bit of romanitized 'lore' too?....just fishing here.

http://www.organic-center.org/reportfiles/5367_Nutrient_Content_SSR_FI NAL_V2.pdf
http://www.mda.state.mn.us/~/media/Files/news/govrelations/organicstat usreport.ashx

I think pnbrown has it right.
The next time someone tells you organic has no difference from conventional, trust your taste buds.

Unfortunately, I do agree with these naysayers in one respect.
Organic agriculture AS IT STANDS TODAY is not ready to feed the world.
We have too many myths we are following.
For example, composting is one of the most expensive and inefficient methods for improving the soil.
There are several university studies recommending incorporation instead.
Washington State has a study showing that as little as a 5% mistake in C/N ratio can cause a 30-50% loss of nitrogen through evaporation.
And there are many in the agriculture industry trying to get farmers to bring animals back into our rotations instead of hauling manure.
We are simply trying to over manage mother nature.
That is too expensive and inefficient.
If we really want to compete, we must change.

There's been a lot less study than people would like. What's more, there's a horrible lack of consistency about what's studied. On both sides of study, there's really horrible sourcing issues. The best studies I've read involve citrus (oddly) where they're the same type, grown in similar soils, and picked at the same point of ripeness. It's a lot more trustworthy than researchers who went to the grocery store or farmer's market to pick up some organic vs conventional sources...treating all "bell peppers" or "tomatoes" the same no matter what seed source it came from.

Cultivar/variety plays a huge role in it's final nutrient content.

One of the biggest (and well sourced) conventional vs organic studies done recently was extremely harshly attacked (even though it referenced the over 200 studies it drew it's conclusions from) by some of those that didn't like it's conclusion.

Fwiw, that report from the "Organic Center" includes many of the 200+ studies in the UC-Stanford report that was crapped on...only without cherry picking the reports and only using data from 40-50 studies. It's a rather "lazy" study from a professional point of view for all the work that was put into it.

Also, the UM study was done by Meg Moynihan...organic dairy farmer and board member of 2 organic professional marketing associations. I'm not familiar with the sources (though assuredly legit) of her study as much as I am about that report from the Organic Center. It was peer reviewed by her superiors and peers before released, though I wouldn't take that her study as gospel given her strong industry ties.

The most common consensus about organic vs conventional nutrient quality based up the existing data is there's a negligible advantage toward either, though organic has shown slight benefits in some areas such as vitamin C content and flavonol quercetin...which isn't the "tastiest" flavonoid out there, but is believed to have positive health effects. Unless you don't eat fruits/veggies at all you're never going to "go low" on quercetin levels in your diet....it's in almost everything plant-based that we eat.

I compost all I can- crop residue, fall leaves, kitchen waste,ect... I spread it on my rows every year. I use leaves as mulch over the winter. I try to manage my soil well and keep a high OM level. The compost I make could never fit my crops nutrtional needs though. I just dont produce enough. It is good enough organic matter to keep the soil good, but it is not organic matter high in nutrition like manure(like you were saying) so it wont keep up with nutrition.

While growing corn (or another heavy feeder) organically using organic input nutrients would be a hard sell to most of those farmers, many other crop farmers can opt to go organically with the nutrients they want given proper variety/cultivar selection...especially many tree fruits, melons, sweet potatoes, cow/black-eye peas, etc...

The biggest issue for them is controlling weeds or pests on huge monoculture crops of tree fruits, toms, peppers, squash, cabbages, head lettuce, etc.

Also, there's a lot of growth regulators (usually to make a fruit bigger) used on tree fruits (and grapes) not approved for organic production. It's a bit of a hard sell to some of these producers even if they can get past the pest pressure issues. Crop loss and less yield per acre can make/break many mass acreage farmers even with a higher market/wholesale price on organic goods.

Some things are a bit easier...like quick-growing leaf lettuce greens and potatoes (in some areas not prone to massive amounts of root pests).

I'm one of those people that believe once we make greater advances in organic pest/weed controls, we'll see more organic growers enter the market.

Here are some facts that are quoted in the "infact" video.

"The National Organic Program is managed under the USDA's Agricultural MARKETING service. Organic is about marketing, not about science, not about health."

So apples are a big one for me, grapes and strawberries. The intensity of the taste is - often enough - significantly better. Next up would be celery, peppers, salads. The flavors are just better and worth the extra dollar or so.

Things like bananas and potatoes, not so much.

Farmers who raise wheat, corn, soybeans, tomatoes, meat animals, and other products face competition from Brazil, Argentina, Russia, China, Mexico, and many other exporters.

Even here in this country farmers are competing against each other. More organicish products have to pay in the market place. In the north it is a lot harder for farmers to get in a cover or green crop before cold weather. In the south it is a lot easier with the long fall season.

Some think that it is all about increasing organic matter, and then that is the engine to drive to healthy crops. Others like Julius Hensel [Bread From Stones] taught it was all about adding stone dusts and avoiding manure. For myself, I like to take
the best from all of them.

Organic cost more, is no healthier, and is worse on the environment.

BTW, are you on someone's payroll, or is this your own private crusade to help hold the line for the agri-giants?

The small organic gardener or farmer can be quite the opposite than the mass ag organic in terms of being environmentally friendly.

Your whole bag that you are on about is whether or not agri-giants will be highly profitable, that's what it boils down to. So I'll ask again:

why would you care about their profits?

TMG1 -- the problem is that you're still quoting from that thing you read that looks like a book and smells like a book but is actually propaganda written by, for, and to protect the profits of the large chemical companies.

When someone does a study that shows a statistically significant higher level of vitamin C in organic food over conventionally grown food, do you believe it? When someone does a study that shows higher levels of salicylates in organic vegetable soup than in soup made with conventionally grown veggies, do you believe it?

No, because that "book" (read: propaganda pamphlet) told you something else. Or maybe it's because others question the above mentioned research because both studies were done by people who support organic agriculture.

Well, time to look at the bias in the "book" you are quoting:
It was a work for hire. It did not compete with other manuscripts in the publishing market place.
It was paid for by Monsanto, Con-Agra, Dow Chemical (I forget the whole list -- I did the research for you a while back, but it didn't seem to impress you). It was not published by a publishing house, in which case it would have been vetted for errors.
It was produced by an agricultural corporation.
It did not receive any reviews from any respected review sources that I can find (if anyone finds one, I'll stand corrected) (PW, Library Journal, Book List, etc.) -- this is another BIG hint that it's not actually a book.
The author's father is well known for pulling "facts" out of his arse (better known as lying) to support his employers (Monsanto, etc. )and then hoping not to be caught (and then being caught) And so the name on the book is the son's (though they often write together . . .), who has yet to be publicly embarrassed by his I-live-in -another-universe kinds of claims (remember the list of his articles? remember how ridiculous his claims are about things like the dust bowl?)

So, the reason you see very little patience with your posts is not that anyone has anything against you -- it's that your source was long ago rather soundly discredited. Your source lives in another universe of "truthiness."

I know, I know, he tells you it's SCIENCE. That's his persuasive technique to make you believe him -- telling you that if you don't believe him, you're stupid because you don't understand SCIENCE, which is mathematical and fool proof, right? (one of my graduate degrees is in persuasion, so don't argue with me here . . .)

In reality, science is all over the place. It suggests one thing, then it suggests another, it requires more research, and yeah, it gives everyone a chance to believe what they want. (outside of a few laws and the periodic table--we've been over this before, too.)

It's easy to find data that shows organic agriculture outperforming conventional in drought years. Take a look into Rodale's 30 year side by side study -- no loss of productivity for organics there. At any rate, the 40% number is just plain wrong. I've linked a large, peer reviewed meta-analysis study below that shows differences to be from 5% to 34% depending upon various factors.

So, guess where you are? You're on an organic forum. And you're continually quoting from Chemical industry propaganda. Sigh. Maybe you don't mind the barbs that come in response to some of your posts -- maybe you like the argument! In that case, have at it. I just thought I'd try one more time to cast whatever light I could (from my own perspective) on the siteeashun. And I have the flu, so I had some time.

A while back you said your head says one thing, and your heart says to grow organic. Follow your heart, man -- in every single case in your life, it will be the wiser voice.

Elisa

"A while back you said your head says one thing, and your heart says to grow organic. Follow your heart, man -- in every single case in your life, it will be the wiser voice."

This is good advice that I wll take. Great words.I want to teach how to make compost from yard and kitchen waste, leaves ect. So many throw away leaves not understanding how much they can do. i used to do the same. I am understanding now how important composting really is.

I can see that organic comes first.

Phosphorus is another issue...we should hit peak use in a few decades with a slow decline lasting 200-ish years. There needs to be a new major discovery or increased conservation if we want to avoid this. I should add that this, like "peak oil," is still a very controversial subject. Some would argue we won't reach peak for another 60-100 years and we have 300-400+ years ahead of us. Either way, it's not easily complexed from other sources or synthesized so we have what we have...and when that's gone...well, technology better have caught up.

Part of farming large cropping systems involves money per acre...and it's scope is beyond the raw material costs. Every time you drag a piece of machinery through a field you add cost to your cropping system in equipment costs, labor, time of fallow between applications/field use, etc.

At this point it's a lot easier to apply nutrients in a single run through a field carrying a single tank of nutrients rather than dumping dozens-hundreds of truck loads of manure...not to mention to the cost of actually hauling it to fields to be applied in the first place.

Many nutrients can be complexed or synthesized from otherwise "odd" sources...such as using natural gas to create N fertilizer or using waste products from manufacturing for many other nutrients.

P is one of those nutrients that mainly comes from a single type of mined source (aside from manure).

If/when this source is on the decline suppliers will have to get those sources from manure....whether it be land applied or some company/corporation doing point-of-source recycling and extraction of P sources at waste treatment plants in order to concentrate P so farmers can continue to apply it to fields in less equipment/labor intensive methods.

I am so glad you come here to post. You are very rational.

"At this point it's a lot easier to apply nutrients in a single run through a field carrying a single tank of nutrients rather than dumping dozens-hundreds of truck loads of manure...not to mention to the cost of actually hauling it to fields to be applied in the first place. "

Thank you, nc. This is a point I have been trying to make.

How about the gas it takes for those trucks to spread all that heavy organic matter.
At that point, the organic farmer is using more fuel per pound of crop produced.

Cover crops can easily be worked into garden applications, but northern farms are hard put to have time [and growing time] to raise much of these.

The Amish farm more like the old timers did. It may work somewhat for them, but not so much for modern farmers. Even the Amish are short on land and have found ways to circumvent some restrictions.

Glib, Where would iodine come from in manure? If it isn't in the soil or supplements for the animals, it won't be there. Iodized salt has iodine [duh]. I take a couple kelp tablets a day as supplemental iodine....very, very cheap.

When it comes to other minerals that are in short supply here in the Midwest, selenium and zinc also qualify. Locally here, P is also quite scarce (5ppm at my orchard before amending). Manures are rich in those elements NOW. They will be poor, or not as rich, later.

Instead of hauling and spreading rock phosphate and
rock potash farmers and ranchers are spending more time
pursuing ways to unlock what they already have.
For example, allowing the grass to grow tall before grazing
allows ectomycorrhizal fungus to provide a burst of phosphorus
that normally would only be available to tree and shrub roots.
At the end of the year when all of this organic matter gets
worked back in, it feeds the saprophytic phase of mycorrhizal
fungus until the right roots come along. That is another
reason compost is so inefficient; it mainly just encourages
bacteria.

There's also the weed issue of turning grazing/pasture land into crop land following a grazing scheme even if you did want to take a year off farming in order to raise a crop of animals.

Putting a crop into the ground requires the amount of investment many small businesses never see. Unless the farmer is lucky enough to actually own the 100-100s of acres they're planting (rather than renting it or paying it off trying to own it) you have 10s-100s thousands of yearly costs in order to put a crop in the ground and properly grow/harvest it.

They have to make that land productive every year/season they can while keeping their land stewardship as earth-friendly as possible. Dead soil doesn't do any farmer any good.

If you go out to many crop fields most of it is ill suited for humans to even walk on, much less animals for most of the year.

One could do a "step down" method of doing corn/soy/wheat/pasture with shallow/no tilling as they step down, but many farmers can't afford to lose the $ on the year of pasture. It's a luxury of those farmers who already own their acreage...which isn't in line with our current agriculture system where small farms produce only about 10% of our food.

The farmers out there renting or trying to pay for 200 acres of land have far more pressing concerns with cash flow and $ per acre of worked land. The "mega-farms" have very little interest in a year of pasture rather than growing a better cash crop.

Also, the allelopathic effects of grasses are not really that great and unless you keep a pasture in a continuous pastureland state it's effect is going to be even less effective. Many broadleaf weeds are effectively out-competed in a properly planted/managed pastureland anyway.

At today's land, seed, fertilizer, tax, and rent prices, the farmer
is leery about low income crops. It is not an ideal situation, but is reality for them.

In my gardens I have only a horse manure pile with lots of straw and hay with it. I do add some leaf compost, but till in all residues in place.

I do generally agree that commonly accepted composting practices are very inefficient. Those I prefer (tilling or burying uncomposted residue, and black soldier fly manure treatment) release far less CO2 or methane, make better use of nutrients and have other advantages (mass reduction and meat production for BS, and encouraging worms and fungi for tilling).

I'll continue to produce K in my wood furnace, though, so no need to hoard.

BTW, if you have VHI P (137) and VHI K (698), but they are not in the correct "balance" would it be detrimental (to soil or environment via runoff) to add P? (Balance as defined by the soilminerals.com folks--my newest experiment in gardening--who say they should be equal)

Or does it make more sense to just work to increase soil life in order to free up the P?

However, a lot of phosphorus goes into the seeds which are harvested and removed from the land while a lot of the potassium goes into the stalk and is returned [recycled] to the soil.

Wayne thanks for the link -- have not read yet, but will.
And to answer your question from waaaay up above about the lore of Italian food -- We weren't expecting great food before we went, and were blindsided by how amazing it was. I think it was the freshness (had never before had a chicken that had been killed that afternoon) and maybe because they let us (very underage) kids drink the home made wine :)

Me, I consider myself a produce snob, really, I know what I like and really dislike the stuff I find inferior, YUK!!! An example that persists in grocery stores is the shipping type strawberries, they look so wonderful in those clam shells but are hard, tasteless and not at all sweet, why bother? My Chandlers are far better in every way except, they would be a horrible shipper as they bruise easily and wouldn't look too pretty by the time they made it to those clam shells in the stores.

Heck, color takes a front seat over taste while size and yield drive the decision to grow these cultivars. Disease resistance and how long they can stay on the shelf without rotting is also important.

They're not ethylene receptive/ripened...though they may turn a little more red while sitting on the shelf. It's just that market/shipping strawberries are mostly chosen for size and yield. That doesn't make for the best tasting strawberry many times.

The bell peppers are beautiful and ok. The small cabbages are delicious...wish I had that variety.

Pn: the research we conducted, if that's what you are refering to, involved employing different growing systems like plasticulture and the most efficient fertilization regimes along with the use of drip irrigation. Up to about 30 or more years ago all veggie crops grown in FL were planted via seed and on bare soil with solid set irrigation, if any. All state fert. recs. were based on growing that way and then alog came plasticulture and transplants. Needless to say, a whole lot of research had to be done to adapt to the new way of growing.

I'm told by a very reliable source that in south FL they are now going to the more expensive slow release N fertilizers to address water quality issues. We didn't analyze the produce itself for nutritional content, that would have been up to the post harvest guys with whom I was unaffiliated.