http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3CoIqpyPYY

the call for certification has led to corruption, when power, greed, men and gov' come together.

grow your own

len

organic methods only benefits the soil and it stops there?

hardly healthy soil grows healthy plants, benefits those who eat those food plants.

len

If a University did publish the truth about Organics vs Synthetics nutritional values, no more funds from the Synthetic Fertilizer Companies.

It is sort of a cat and mouse game when trying to see whom funded the research for studies done by Universities. They always put it under different company names so the public can not figure it out. Brilliant marketing.

I suppose the majority of the public has been mislead for many years, and will be duped for many years to follow.

Ron

money corrupts, there are no unbiased reports coming from universities etc.,. the best method is forget the science and use natural methods, all our rottable stuff goes into the gardens, no fertiliser needed.

len

You know why I like science? Well, there are no opinions, only facts.

"Plants do not differentiate the nutrients they absorb resulting from hydroponic or organic nutrient solutions. For example, nitrogen is typically available as NO3- or NH4+. It does not matter to the plant whether it came from guano or bottled nutrient."

http://www.simplyhydro.com/do_organics_taste_better.htm

Here's some Science for you......
Do you know that the plants roots sends out signals for microorganisms to get what the plant needs? I didn't think so. It is called symbiosis and if you think Hydroponics can supply all the nutrients the same as the soil in a garden, you also have been duped.

If the statements you mentioned above would hold true, then every Farmer, Gardner that grows Organics would be dumping Hydroponic Fertilizers in their soil.

There is a cycle that Organic fertilizers go through and no Hydroponic, Synthetic or even One Organic Fertilizer can supply all the needs of the plants roots.

The plant can tell the difference what it is receiving, that's why Synthetic Fertilized fruits and veggies have a horrible taste. If you can't tell the difference in taste, you have never tasted a true Organic Fertilized fruit or veggie.

With that said, there are some advantages to supplementing your current hydroponic nutrient regimen with an organic based product. There are an array of products on the market that take advantage of compost teas and the complex array of substances and beneficial life they may contain. Many organic based products are fortified with other compounds which include complex and simple sugars, amino acids, phyto-hormones, vitamins, minerals, etc."

http://www.simplyhydro.com/do_organics_taste_better.htm

That whole "chemical" taste is a huge myth.

"Do you know that the plants roots sends out signals for microorganisms to get what the plant needs? I didn't think so."

Which are all elements that are in SOLUBLE form. Plants cant uptake organic material, but the elements in which were broken down by soil organisms. At that point they are the same element from the synthetic source.

The advantage of organic farming is explained above. Because these different elements are found in organic material the crop will result in a complex characteristic. I am making the point of the elements are the same from the synthetic form.

I have brixed all kinds of produce: homegrown vs imported; grocery stuff organic vs conventional, etc. Consistently organic tests higher than non-organic, IME. Usually stuff I grow is higher than bought organic, but not always. There are a lot of factors that determine the nutrient value of produce. Soil quality is the primary one, certainly.

"Do you know that the plants roots sends out signals for microorganisms to get what the plant needs? I didn't think so."

Wow you answered your own question.

Attention Folks: there are people that will back up what they THINK is true even if it defies science. Learn the science, not the hype.

If you already read my above posts and still think plants can tell the difference then there is nothing I can do.

Dont worry back when I was a know it all I thought plants could tell the difference too. Back when I did not understand science....

Wow you answered your own question.

TheMasterGardener1, Stop with the misleading statements.
Perhaps you need to do some Science research yourself to understand the symbiotic relationship that takes place in the soil.

Or keep pumping your fruits and veggies with synthetic fertilizers and good luck with your health and future. By the way, also enjoy your fruits and veggies that are over-saturated with nitrates. I'm sure they will be nutritious and tasty in your dogmatic mind.

Ron

Not to say that other factors may factor into the equation. As far as nutritional value of foods, I have never tested any of my home grown food compared to produce from a store, I would speculate it is as good, probably better, but that would be merely speculation.

I hate to do this, but watch this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhBKtjDtTVk&feature=related

If we switched over to your so great organic farming we could only feed 4 billion people, and there are 7 billion people on earth. Is that what you want? Admit it, you dont even know what you want, do you?
Your organic hype is a joke.

If we had to feed our population with orgainc farming then we would have to farm HALF of the earth's land. FACT.

Posted by prestons_garden 9B SZ 22 HZ 6 SoC (rpreston1000@yahoo.com) on Mon, Oct 29, 12 at 23:04

"TheMasterGardener1, Stop with the misleading statements.
Perhaps you need to do some Science research yourself to understand the symbiotic relationship that takes place in the soil.

Or keep pumping your fruits and veggies with synthetic fertilizers and good luck with your health and future. By the way, also enjoy your fruits and veggies that are over-saturated with nitrates. I'm sure they will be nutritious and tasty in your dogmatic mind. "

Organic/Confused Gardener^

I hope to stop all this organic hype. Conventional farmers do less pollution.

Besides being poor grammar, this statement must have come from the depths of the corporate kool-aid jug.

Another fun fact- Organic farmers are using some of the worst pestisides ever. Conventional farms use the new safe man made synthetic pestisides.

Because of my poor grammer I would suggest not listening to a word I said. I would just keep feeding into the organic hype.

Pouring you another glass, you seem eager to drink. "

Really?

Go ahead and watch this-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhBKtjDtTVk&feature=related

Now what do you have to say? I would really like to hear!

So all in all, who is really doing anything bad? The Organic farmer? No way. or the conventional farmer? Neihter. The such high demand for so much food is.

I really got sidetracked there.

I really just wanted to make a point that the characteristics of organic crops result from the different array of elements not found in the basic nutrients synthetics supplies. These elements are the same no matter sourced from synthetic or organic.

"TheMasterGardener1, Stop with the misleading statements.
Perhaps you need to do some Science research yourself to understand the symbiotic relationship that takes place in the soil. "

Ron,

I am sorry as I made it LOOK like I was disagreeing with this particular statement.- "Do you know that the plants roots sends out signals for microorganisms to get what the plant needs?"

I said you answered your own question because YOU followed the statement with- "I didn't think so" So you are saying what I know or not. Of course I know about symbiosis.

I hope this clears some things up.

Nitrogen is available as NO3- or NH4+. Plants cant uptake organic material.

To plants inorganic nutrition is life. Fact is there is NO organically grown food.

Like I said take everything said with a grain of salt.

If anyone wants to add, feel free, but I wont be posting anymore in this. I want to keep this a great place to ask questions and talk about organic gardening.

You are correct that "organic" food does not taste,or x,y,z better than "non-organic" food because it is supposedly "organic".

The benefits from supposed organic gardening come because what they are doing is conditioning the soil.
Basic science says the structure of the soil determines what the plant can up-take, period.

I live in an area where the soil was/is called black-gold as I can go out to any patch of land that has not been built on, turn it over and grow vegetables that taste as good as any from any supposed organic wonder garden due to the exemplary condition of the soil as left by time and nature.

The only difference between organic conditions of soil and using synthetic fertilizers is the synthetic fertilizers do nothing to condition the soil and the removal rate is unpredictable so the soil can become seriously unbalanced.

Is there a difference in taste when the nutrients are supplied in proper amounts whether "organic" or "non-organic", no.
The laws of science say so.

you seem very well locked into the falseness of men driven sciences, that's ok that be your worship.

science is not needed to grow foods naturally we only need to as much as possible replicate nature, science can't handle that. and science is nothing not fact but theory and conjecture.

my naturally without any chemicals gardening provides me with food that does taste different from commercial farm produce, why? i'm not really interested but it tastes different and it comes to my table so much fresher not after a couple weeks of chilled long haul across the nation, not after the greedy profiteers shops have had it in chill storage for up to about 2 years, and not after it has chemical treatment to stop it from sprouting or ripening too quickly for a longer shelf life.

so yes tasting different and for me better is real not science theory, i can eat my own zucchinis 'till the cows come home i can't stomach shop product, the same with silverbeet picked moments before cooking.

i could care less what science thinks, their unprovable theories, science is just a higher level of educated guess work, that is why it is always called theory, not and never fact.

and i won't enter the hydroponics sector because no where in nature do the plants (apart from aquatic type plants) live in water. i tried hydro' tomatos once they tasted bloomin terrible.

i for one am for the laws of nature, the natural way.

len

It is impossible to have a synthetic fertilizer supply all the nutrients required by plants in the correct ratio. This will never happen in my time or yours as long as man tries to manipulate mother natures process between plant and nutrient uptake with synthetic fertilizers.

Ron

Same thing with organics.

End of story.

"i could care less what science thinks, their unprovable theories, science is just a higher level of educated guess work, that is why it is always called theory, not and never fact."

Thanks, Len. I was hesitant to jump into the fray, so I'm glad you spoke first on this issue of science being fact or opinion. The first thing they always drilled into our heads in each of the 4 or 5 grad research courses I suffered through, was that scientific research never ever proves anything, it only forms an opinion and suggests where the next research should progress from. Outside of math and the periodic table, there are no facts. Even engineering has levels of confidence -- higher levels than, say, medicine, but still only levels of confidence in the "truth" of a theory.

I always look at the research behind what is presented as true. The Haughley experiment seems to be a well constructed research project -- three plots of land, over many years, thousands of soil analyses (25,000 over one 5 year period, though the experiment went on for many more years). It seems to take into account the incredible complexity of comparing organic and synthetic inputs.

A few of the results:
crop yields on organic farm equal to or greater than crop yields on chemical-livestock farm
Vitamin analyses between veggies about equal
cows on organic farm produced more milk, and their milk had higher protein content
Ash analysis of silage and hay crops: organic samples had greatest ash analysis, indicating that superior fodder was being grown.
available plant food level in organic section increased greatly during the summer months, making plant nutrients more available, presumably because of activity of micro organisms in the soil.
And of course, not surprisingly, humus content on chemical farm decreased, while it increased on organic farm.

Let me clarify about scientific method and theories. The only good way we know anything is by observation and testing. That's how we know everything we know. We all practice the scientific method from the moment we are born.

Now about this theory business. Unfortunately the term has been, shall I say, diluted by general public use. In Science a Theory is the highest attainable level of explanation. It is not a guess or a hunch. It is an explanation of a set of testable observations and experiments. It is supported by facts.

In layman's terms "just a theory" really is referring to a hypothesis. A hypothesis is a guess, sometimes an informed guess, that needs to be tested.

We never say that gravity is just a theory. The theory of gravity (not the law, but the explanation of the observable facts) is the best explanation we have. It describes how objects of mass attract each other.

The thing about science is that it is always striving to find the best explanations and is not limited by the idea of absolute knowledge. If verifiable evidence is obtained that refutes a theory, the theory is revised to encompass ALL the data.

Not like-

"Posted by purpleinopp 8b AL (My Page) on Tue, Oct 30, 12 at 11:25

I think you have a very narrow view, loosely based on some vague ax which you feel the need to grind, of a giant, multifaceted issue, as well as seemingly experiencing childish glee from arguing merely for the sake of having an argument, both of which unfortunately negate the possibility of having a rational discussion. "

Mad/Confused/Organic Gardener^

;)

To plants inorganic nutrition is life. Fact is there is NO organically grown food.

There is NO organically grown food.

I can directly see some of those that posted understand science and get the point I am making.Whether organic gardener or not, they see my point I am making, thanks to everyone who posted.

An organic crop will have more variety in the diet, thus resulting in a complex taste. It is ONLY the different elements that make the characteristics different. Even if those very same trace elements in the organics were sourced from snthetic the crop would taste the same as the organic crop. The thing is it is a fact that the organic material WILL have trace elements where the synthetic fertilizer will not. The TRUE difference between organic and conventional infact!!! ;)

I know I said I would not post but I just had to!! :)

Face it, you're addicted to debating. You just had to post again which will keep the torch lit. LOL, Sense of humor will always make a person's day. ;-)

Ron

;)

of course in organics we can't exactly replace the trace elements the NPK factor too easy as farm science theory has determined, but they continually ignore the necessary trace element needed in the plants nutrient package to pass onto us.

lets take it right back to natural integrity once they clear land to farm it, the lands degeredation begins. and they farm it to withing an nth of its life then instead of rehabilitating it like mining has to do they flog it off for housing/industrial development and we including the environment lose forever.

as the term organic has been corrupted by greed, for me it is natural gardening.

yes science has been elevated to the worship level of god's, when it is only every theory and never proven hard copy fact.

len

Science?

That is not even close to true, regardless of his dog and pony show.

Capitalism, at its most remorseless, is a physical manifestation of greed.

Socialism, at its most remorseless, is possibly a physical manifestation of psychopathy, i.e. Stalin.

Still the closing paragraph from the New York Times does does give the book merit.------>
"In the end, Mr. Ronson comes up with a persuasive argument that the psychopath checklist and DSM-IV are dangerous weapons. If more and more fine-tuned mental disturbances can be diagnosed as legitimate, patients wind up in Catch-22 situations. (How do they do anything that is not suspect?) Drug companies thrive. And children get books like "My Bipolar, Roller Coaster, Feelings Book," whose author is interviewed here. She earns her place in Mr. Ronson's world for having given her baby son the nickname Mister Manic Depressive. "

And just for fun I thought I'd let you know, I live in a place that has only one window. In the storage room. And I heat with wood. Kinda toasty in this cave. I also grow food and hunt with pointy sticks. Run around the woods picking berries. Catch fish with my bare hands....Only kidding I have a fishing pole.

Don,t be making fun of us cavies

Greed is a symtom of psychopathy

"Posted by prestons_garden 9B SZ 22 HZ 6 SoC (rpreston1000@yahoo.com) on Wed, Oct 31, 12 at 13:17

TheMasterGardener1,
Face it, you're addicted to debating. You just had to post again which will keep the torch lit. LOL, Sense of humor will always make a person's day. ;-)

Ron"

I siad your right just to make things more positive, but I really want to put an end to this organic hype if you really want to know.

A little tyred of these organic.... telling everyone organic food is better then the chemical filled conventional produce. They dont really even know what a "chemical " is.

How come those that have NOT been funded by either organic or synthetic fertilizer companies clame organic food is no better? Anyone that said these studies are not telling the truth because they are being funded by synthetic fertilizer companies does not understand science.

Can you tell me what is a "hard copy fact"?

when it can be seen or there is some hard copy passed down through the eons, fact is fact as theory is fiction.

and we see little hard copy fact from most of the sciences.

read hans christian anderson's "the emporers new clothes" for me pretty much sums up science.

back in the 50's we read morals like this so we might not get conned, the other good one was king knut had his throne taken to the beach to demonstrate his power to his subjects, he was going to command the rising tide to stop, it didn't and he went under so to speak, sounds like lots of today's science especially the co2 one.

len

I guess we are all psychopaths then, of course Mr.Ronson takes issue with that.

Organic practices I believe tips the scales for healthier food...everything else being equal. Too many studies focus on the anti-oxidant values which are mostly made up of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen...elements that are easily obtained from soil, air, and water. The real testing should include the more complex nutrients which is where better soils will shine.

Take care of the soil to the best of your ability, and it will take care of you to the best of its ability Gardening isn't rocket science. It's servitude (If you're free-spirited you won't enjoy servitude, mainly because servitude means you have to answer to a master, like a servant does.)It doesn't take any fancy potions to please my master.just leaves grass clippings and wood ashes. He looks happy

"not limited by the idea of absolute knowledge." -- a very positive way to look at how science actually works. Only problem is, the human mind tends to hear things presented by authorities and believe that it is absolutely true. (war of the worlds anyone?)

As Woody Allen famously said, "All the things our mothers told us were good for us are actually bad for us: red meat, milk, sunshine . . ."
More testing and observing needed!

Mastergardener -- what you touched on with the trace elements being what it's all about is what I have long suspected. That study done a couple years back that tracked the areas in the world with the healthiest, longest lived people, found one place (with, if I remember correctly, THE healthiest of all) with amazing water that ran off glaciers that they used to water their gardens with -- filled with trace minerals.

Thanks, myluck for the photo. That was like an "ahhhh" moment -- that's what it's all about! (except that my garden in under 3 feet of snow right now)

As Woody Allen famously said, "All the things our mothers told us were good for us are actually bad for us: red meat, milk, sunshine . . ."

---

All three of those things are not BAD for us -- TOO MUCH of them are! One can actually drink too much WATER.

I like this quote better--- "Everything in MODERATION."

;)

Kevin

But BY FAR the better way to make a healthy soil is to use organic matter. Organic matter provides food for the soil as well as for the plants.

Because of that, organic matter is what I always use. Albeit in quantities in FAR LARGER amounts than synthetic fertilizers.

Also, although this is an organic forum, I don't object to people using a little of bit of synthetic fertilizer now and then to supplement the organic stuff they are using to fertilize the plants.

But you simply HAVE to use organic matter to produce good, healthy soil IMHO.

That is where organic matter especially shines.

That is what I do. I use OM to keep a healthy soil while using synthetic fertilizer to fill in any nutritional gaps.

"Also, although this is an organic forum, I don't object to people using a little of bit of synthetic fertilizer now and then to supplement the organic stuff they are using to fertilize the plants. "
That is what I do. I use OM to keep a healthy soil while using synthetic fertilizer to fill in any nutritional gaps."

Those statements sound like feed the plant not the soil. Not organic practices. If your OM ain't got it somethings wrong with your OM.Or maybe your green thumb is malfunctioning.

the charter for the forum is as follows: "Organic gardening is most easily defined as a philosophy that stresses the use of naturally occurring substances and friendly predators and avoiding man-made chemical fertilizers and pesticides. This is the philosophy which guides this forum."

we promote natural gardening say again we use no man made fertilisers(liquid or other wise) or chemicals in our gardens, we have used natural pyrethrums from time to time. we use no manures(too much effort to source it), we put all rottables from kitchen and spent plants into the gardens under the mulch. we buy in no soils only mushroom compost.

too easy really, you should give it go maybe? at least taste the diffrence. the motto is "feed the soil and it will feed you though your crops."

oh! we do use a smidgen of dolomite and heaps of gypsum, but only once ever in each application.

len

That was not a quote from me-

Posted by rdak z5MI (My Page) on Sun, Nov 4, 12 at 7:05

"Also, although this is an organic forum, I don't object to people using a little of bit of synthetic fertilizer now and then to supplement the organic stuff they are using to fertilize the plants. "

Thanks rdak.

Posted by myluck 5 In (My Page) on Sun, Nov 4, 12 at 14:06

"Those statements sound like feed the plant not the soil. Not organic practices. If your OM ain't got it somethings wrong with your OM.Or maybe your green thumb is malfunctioning. "

I add OM which BUILDS soil, then I use SYNTHETIC fertilizer to FEED the plants.

"If your OM ain't got it somethings wrong with your OM.Or maybe your green thumb is malfunctioning."

Yea, how can leaf mold fit the nutritional needs of say tomatoes? I dont make my own compost, (if your buying compost and getting heavy organic material delivered chances are you as an organic gardener/farmer are polluting way more then someone using the nutritional powerhouse-synthetic fertilizer.) nor do I buy it. I will not buy compost to fit my plants nutritional needs that would take way too much time and money. I had a lot of fun growing 60 lb of jalapenos this year with little work and 2 dollars woth of synthetic fertilizer. Maybe an organic gardener could grow that same 60 lb of jalapeno for free, but with WAY more work. It is eiter time or money. I have grown organically when I thought there was a reason. I can tell you it is way more work and time. This a reason maybe 2% of our food is grown organically. And the fact we would have to farm HALF of the earths land if we grew 100% organic. keypoint->It takes either more time or money to grow organic for large farms, it is the same on a small scale farm or garden. <-keypoint

There is no such thing as a green thumb, some just understand plants a little more.

Hmm, anything that comes in a bag, bottle or box, OMRI, or not, is man made.

Speeking of synthetic pestisides. One cup of coffee has 1000x the cancer risks then one year of exsposure to synthetic pesteside resedue.

You may enjoy this book- "The truth about organic foods book"

"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."

There is no proof organic foods have more nutrition.

It is all about nutrietion.

A plant grown hydroponically with synthetics can have way higher nutrition then organic plants that may be lacking some basic macronutrients. Just like an organic crop can have way higher nutrition than a hydroponically grown crop that had something missing in the fertilizer. It all comes down to SOLUBLE elements. Plants cant tell whether these elements are sourced from organic or synthetic.

Remember:
Also, for example, Nitrogen is available as NO3- or NH4+. Plants cant uptake organic material, only the elements that are broken down by microorganisms first, then at that point they are the same elemnts found in synthetic fertilizer.

To plants inorganic nutrition is life. Fact is there is NO organically grown food.

When you are all better, come back and maybe the light will be on.

Ron

What a great book- The Truth About Organic Foods

"Book Description
Publication Date: 2006
The Truth About Organic Foods by Alex Avery,Director of Research and Education, Hudson Institute. Are organic foods really worth their high prices? Are they as healthy as you think? This is the first-of-its kind book dispels the many myths that marketers of organic foods have been circulating in a scientific-based, and at times, humorous approach. Consumers, retailers, food companies, and farmers will find this book highly enlighting and helpful when they are faced with the choice to go-organic - or not. Begining with the rather mysterious creation of the organic movement in the 1920s,the book takes the reader through the many health, saftey and unintentional consequences surrounding this controversial subject. Chapters include: Is Organic Food Healthier?; Is Organic Food Safer?; Organic Pesticides?; Hormone Hype and Antibiotics Angst; and Organic Farming versus Wildlife Habitat. 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."

I do promise I will no further post anymore on this topic.

Fact is, no matter what was said I agree organic gardening is best.

TheMasterGardener1,
Did you get checked out by your Doctor? I think that nasty fall you had must have really shorted out some wires and knocked out a few marbles.
When you are all better, come back and maybe the light will be on.

Ron"

Organic Gardener^

:) Sorry I had to!!!

Really?

"organic farming's lower yields and reliance on scarce organic fertilizers represents a potential threat to the world's forests, wetlands and grasslands. "

a bit of a fairy tale that organic natural growing produces less, our gardens don't produce any less than those who dig and use chemical applications.

so that one is a furphy that science uses to cloud the issue. conventional broad acre/factory farming(around 60k to 100k acres takes massive irrigation and chem' app's) is the real threat to the habitat massive land clearing massive water harvesting, and massive run offs to the rivers and oceans.

science supports theory/fiction not actual fact, as they manipulate their theories to support conventional and the gov'.

we need to examine how science tells us to farm and grow food, carting produce long distances is not the answer.

len

LOL, TheMasterGardener1,

Where in the world do you get this information from?

TheMasterGardener1,
Are you ok with eating GMO foods that have been feed only synthetic fertilizers?

Ron

What ever you you choose to do, be sure to get out in the garden to get your daily dose of vitamin D, well, at least some of it.

Ron

Where in the world do you get this information from?

TheMasterGardener1,
Are you ok with eating GMO foods that have been feed only synthetic fertilizers?

Ron "

Science.

I said look up the book "the truth about organic foods.

by Alex Avery,Director of Research and Education, Hudson Institute.

I understand the science of it all.

"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."

It's an unknown, but at least it's a "known unknown", as Rumsfeld would say.

but those who support cem' co's and the science standing over others as usual

i produce as much if not more in my truely natural progression gardens as those do who buy expensive chemicals and fertilisers to produce the prettiest produce and the best at show, none of which interests a natural original organic grower, i don't want bigget tomatos i want more tomatos. without chemical intervention.

it interestss me not what qualifications one gets like being a master gardener or horticulturist (they led us to this chemical demise) all those people do is promote what they have been indoctrinated to believe.

me my info' comes free of stand over or fee, this is how i do my gardening. ok i have failures i learn from them but they make no diffrence, the experts peddle poisons.

get real get natural organic means original, how can they honestly take a product derived from chemical caged chooks turn it into pellets then say it is organic booolsh.

len

Elisa, getting tired of the rhetoric.

Let alone the ones banned in Europe where the agro-petrochemical industry doesn't run the government.

Avery is the anti-thesis of Carson both out on their respective extreme limbs.
One would not exist without the other.

I think that you have hit upon something there. Factions rise up to counter extremes. I suppose that if the more radical parts of organics had their full way, we would be tied up in knots.

I think that you have hit upon something there. Factions rise up to counter extremes. I suppose that if the more radical parts of organics had their full way, we would be tied up in knots.

How can someone compare this to what comes out of an animals back end. The use of oil, natural gas, mining, nitric acid, sulfuric acid etc. etc .....

Eric

Eric

It is amazing, however, to see such deeply and firmly held and strongly argued positions regarding these sciences (or their implications) by persons who clearly understand very little about science in general, chemistry specifically, and the relevant details of agronomy (plant nutrition and nutrient/soil relationships).

It is almost like the origin of life and evolution of life controversies. It involves faith or dogma, not revealed fact or rigorous inference.

I know. I was talking with someone that had a PhD in horticulture. They went on and on about how plants cant tell whether the nutrients they uptake came from a synthetic source or an organic source. I too argued angainst this person, and at the same time I was arguing against science. When I learned the science I felt a little embarrassed. It is nice now to able to understand this science of inorganic nutrition and got past all the false mumbo jumbo.

Here is a post that may help-

"Posted by TheMasterGardener1 5B (My Page) on Wed, Oct 31, 12 at 10:52

Nitrogen is available as NO3- or NH4+. Plants cant uptake organic material.
To plants inorganic nutrition is life. Fact is there is NO organically grown food."

Hows that science for ya'? ;)

Nope over population is the issue. Then everyone points at the conventional farmer like they are bad. Really organic farms do more harm to the enviroment because it takes way more land. Again, 2% of our food is grown organically and it would take half of the earth to farm 100% organic.

Personally, I think population run a muck is do to belief, religion and or the suppressed. People in starving countries have children.

Trying to pump more from the earth is result of high population.

Thank you very much. So all of those that think they are helping the enviroment by eating organic your really doing more harm then someone that eats conventional food.

"It's the same the whole world over It's the poor what gets the blame It's the rich what gets the pleasure Ain't it all a bloomin' shame?"

that song was sung back in about 1933 in england.

sorry to say that we don't need factory/broadacre farms, and neither did we ask for them to happen along and decimate our habitats, changing our climates, that all occur through science convincing farmer to go for a bigger bottom line, but farmers still didn't win the middle men upward did, the wealthier lots.

our gardens with no chemicals or fertilisers do just as well as someone who used chemical applications, we grow in season and locality suitable plants, we don't try and grow things meant for other climes.

without and science mumbo jumbo we all would do much better and get healthier if our farmers lived near us so we could all but walk to the farm and get super fresh in season staple produce, like it was here in the 40's and 50's we had simple modest homes, and could afford to live.

there are communities set up this way, imagine say you pay $5 a kilo for beans at the ripoffmarket, if we cut out distance and the rip off middle men we would be happy to pay the farmer that full $5 per kilo, he would live well getting 1/2 that, then he becomes our neighbour, and we wouldn't need rip off regulation to keep him honest. called for by people who judged by their own merits.

they are raping our habitat for their own paltry gains.

think about it, our spray-less chemical free garden is thriving and for the size of it almost over producing we are currently giving heaps away, from 18 sq/mts of growing area.

stop blaming the struggling poor for the pleasures of the rich.

blessing from len

[quote]there are communities set up this way, imagine say you pay $5 a kilo for beans at the ripoffmarket, if we cut out distance and the rip off middle men we would be happy to pay the farmer that full $5 per kilo, he would live well getting 1/2 that, then he becomes our neighbour, and we wouldn't need rip off regulation to keep him honest. called for by people who judged by their own merits[/quote]

Buy local. We have many CSA's and a member owned Co-op. I even sell directly to local restaurants. Cut out the middleman.

I found that there is a point - reached fairly soon - where increasing inputs in the expectation of increased production and subsequent profit don't work out as well as planned. Basically because some new limiting factor pops up. So to shift this over to agriculture, probably the first limiting factor is nitrogen. So add nitrogen fertilizer. Then its phosphate, potassium, trace minerals. All those are added. then suddenly all kinds of bugs show up in the monoculture - need pesticides. Then irrigation. Then a bigger tractor, harvesting equipment. Then so much capital is invested that you need insurance, or one bad storm and you're bankrupt. The costs and inputs go up and up, so does production, but the profit may not follow - particularly now when whatever is being produced is sold on world commodity markets with speculation, forward contracts, and so on.

So most societies have all kinds of subsidies going on - it may be tax-free diesel to run your tractors, export market guarantees, guaranteed bottom price, dirt cheap property taxes on your farm, subsidized loans. Then the fertilizers and other inputs are subsidized as well, lobbied as an essential part of the farming economy. And none of this addresses the environmental costs of your culture. The pollution is somebody else's problem - for a while.

So the question: 'which is better' - a more less-intensive, diversified, resilient, nutrient recycling sort of agriculture base, ak 'organic' - vs some high risk, insured, capital intensive highly productive-per-unit monoculture that requires several million dollars worth of capital to practice. Depends who you ask and what factors enter the equation.

I remember the early '80s when we started getting in some Japanese products where I worked. I was given a hearing with the division manager about it and he set me straight how it was a global thing now. Perhaps sadly, he was right.

Same thing today holds for most food production. Yes, there are markets more sensitive to ecos, but brother, it is hard work....and we don't like hard work anymore...vis the past election.

Eric

Yes I do. There are 2 points here so which one would you like to hear about?

1. Organic farming is no better for the enviroment, in fact, it is worse on a large scale compared to conventional methods.

2. Plants cant tell whether the nutrients they uptake are sourced from organic or not, as they are all just elements.

"I'd like see better sources to back up your statements TMG."

That is whay I said: "Yes I do."

I mean I have posted some very great sources like Ag Scientists.

Please do note that Dunning is making his living as a professional skeptic (and possibly through fraudulent means -- he is fighting his case on the basis of legal loopholes rather than any claimed innocence) and is not a scientist.

Avery is as much in the pockets of the pesticide producers as anyone could be. The Hudson Institute, the think-tank where he is employed, is funded by the following companies: Monsanto, Dow Elanco, Ag-Chem Equipment Co, ConAgra, Cargill, DuPont, Sandoz, and Ciba-Geigy

Avery's book was not published by a main stream publisher, in which case it would have been vetted by the editorial department fact-checkers. It was produced by Henderson Communications, an agribusiness consulting group.

Oh, and Alex is the son of Dennis Avery, who also works at the Hudson Institute, and is perhaps best know for writing an article for the Wall Street Journal in which he claimed that the Centers for Disease Control had conducted studies showing that eating organic food carried an 8 fold risk of contracting E-coli poisoning over eating a conventional diet. Despite the fact that the CDC had NEVER conducted any research to that effect, his article was widely quoted. So, perhaps the younger Avery has learned that you can write, and publish, whatever you want, and it will be widely quoted, and it will take a while before anyone figures out that you were just plain lying.

That "facts" you are quoting from Avery's book are fishy. All three of these guys are fishy. And dishonest. And working for a cause. And paid by special interests. That is certainly not the kind of "science" I would recommend anyone use as the basis for making their gardening decisions.

My suggestion to you is to KEEP READING. Read some studies that the three guys above would hate -- you owe it to your brain to give it the opposing view point. And become your own scientist. Buy a brix meter and test organic and conventional foods and see what readings you get. Go back to organic methods in part of your own garden, and compare your results with the parts where your have turned conventional. Give it ten years. Compare your yields, insect and disease pressure, taste and brix readings.

Or don't.
But do consider your soures, and their motivations and character, before you let their "facts" change your behavior.

Eric Biksa http://www.simplyhydro.com/do_organics_taste_better.htm

"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."

http://www.amazon.com/The-Truth-About-Organic-Foods/dp/0978895207

"My suggestion to you is to KEEP READING. Read some studies that the three guys above would hate -- you owe it to your brain to give it the opposing view point. And become your own scientist. Buy a brix meter and test organic and conventional foods and see what readings you get. Go back to organic methods in part of your own garden, and compare your results with the parts where your have turned conventional. Give it ten years. Compare your yields, insect and disease pressure, taste and brix readings."

Trust me I have. I have grown organic thinking I needed to avoid chemicals until I understood the science. The organic hype is nothing more, just hype. I knew a long time ago organic farms produce way less, I did not know it was this big of a threat to the envirmoent because those that make money from the organic hype want to convert to organic farming that takes way more land and resources to produce food.

The problem is with your brix meter is that hydroponic crops grown with 100% synthetic have shown WAY higher nutrition then plants grown organically in soil. The important nutrient- air that is always available in high amounts to the roots in hydroponics may allow the crop to have way higher nutrition. This oes back to the important micro and macronutrients that really result in yield or nutrition. With that said, there are studies that show organic crops have higher nutrition, followed by WAY more studies that show there is no difference. :) Funny. Crop nutrition is not based on organics lol. There is no 'voodoo' that organic do. There could be a healthier organic crop if a conventional crop is lacking Calcium. There could be a healthier synthetic crop if the organic crop lacked Calcium.

"My suggestion to you is to KEEP READING. Read some studies that the three guys above would hate -- you owe it to your brain to give it the opposing view point. And become your own scientist."

I hate to say this, but I already saw all the organic hype dipslayed in front of me, it makes me sick. It is a little funny some of the marketing techniques used in the huge organic industry. I suggest you keep reading lol :)

I assume that organic soils can be lacking too...so I moderately remineralized my gardens.

Of course, flavor varies considerably due to season and shelf-time and all that, but Lord, the difference in taste between an organic apple and one that isn't, the same variety, is staggering. Let alone squash, celery, berries, salad, and so on.

A double blind taste test - you know, scientifically speaking? Try one. Have someone else buy organic and non-organic celery, apples, winter squash, etc, then remove the labels and give them numbers, then have a 3rd person who doesn't know which is which serve it up. Do it yourself, don't depend on somebody else's' experience.

This is the science of what makes organics taste different.

"However, what you taste is not what you fed your plants, but what your plants were able to do with what they were fed. Organic solutions can be more complex in terms of the array of substances and organisms they contain when compared to standard synthetic fertilizer solutions. As a result, the plants have more variety in their diet which they can utilize, possibly resulting in more complex tastes, etc. Now, that was one of the upsides of organics. One of the drawbacks of organic crop production vs. standard hydroponic fertilizer is that the majority of nutrients are not immediately available to the plant. This makes it very difficult to monitor and regulate concentration and ratios of elements available to the plant. If using premium hydroponic fertilizers, the vast majority of nutrients are immediately available in precise and measurable values. As a result, healthy vigorous plants can reach their genetic potential which includes characteristics such as taste and flavor. Plants do not differentiate the nutrients they absorb resulting from hydroponic or organic nutrient solutions. For example, nitrogen is typically available as NO3- or NH4+. It does not matter to the plant whether it came from guano or bottled nutrient. "

http://www.simplyhydro.com/do_organics_taste_better.htm

You are correct about ripe time and I do agree. It looked like I was disagreeing with you by my first sentance in my last post above.

Over the 30 years of the trial, organic corn and soybean yields were equivalent to conventional yields in the tilled systems.
Wheat yields were the same for organic and conventional systems. (Wheat was
only added to the conventional system in 2004).
Organic corn yields were 31% higher than conventional in years of drought. These drought yields are remarkable when compared to genetically engineered "drought tolerant" varieties which saw increases of only 6.7% to 13.3% over conventional (non-drought resistant) varieties.
Corn and soybean crops in the organic systems tolerated much higher levels of weed competition than their conventional counterparts, while producing equivalent yields. This is especially significant given the rise of herbicide-resistant weeds in conventional systems, and speaks to the increased health and productivity of the organic soil (supporting both weeds and crop yields).

Farmers who cultivated GM varieties earned less money over a 14-year period than those who continued to grow non-GM crops according to a study from the University of Minnesota.
Traditional plant breeding and farming methods have increased yields of major grain crops three to four times more than GM varieties despite huge investments of public and private dollars in biotech research.
There are 197 species of herbicide resistant weeds, many of which can be linked directly back to GM crops, and the list keeps growing.
GM crops have led to an explosion in herbicide-use as resistant crops continue to emerge. In particular, the EPA approved a 20-fold increase in how much glyphosate (Roundup�) residue is allowed in our food in response to escalating concentrations.

FEEDING THE WORLD
Agribusinesses have long clung to the rallying cry of needing to increase yields in order to feed the world. However, feeding the world is not simply a matter of yields. The global food security community is shifting swiftly in support of an organic approach.

"Organic agriculture has the potential to secure a global food supply, just as conventional agriculture is today, but with reduced environmental impact." This is according to a report that came out of the Food and Agricultural Organizations of the United Nations (FAO) International Conference on Organic Agriculture and Food Security.

Agroecological farming methods could double global food production in just 10 years, according to a report from the United Nations. Agroecological practices, like organic practices, attempt to mimic natural processes and rely on the biology of the soil and environment rather than synthetic sprays and other inputs.

Switching to organic methods in communities where people struggle to feed themselves and their families can lead to a harvest 180% larger than that produced by conventional methods. Numerous independent studies have shown that small scale, organic farming is the best option for feeding the world now and in the future. Not only does it produce competitive yields in a healthy and sustainable way as FST has shown, it also supports local communities and cultures. Therefore, our goal for the future is to continue to support the transition of conventional farms to organic farming systems.

http://www.rodaleinstitute.org/fst30years/yields

Eric

Organic yields match conventional yields.

Organic outperforms conventional in years of drought.

Organic farming systems build rather than deplete soil organic matter, making it a more sustainable system.

Organic farming uses 45% less energy and is more efficient.

Conventional systems produce 40% more greenhouse gases.

Organic farming systems are more profitable than conventional.

Eric

Thats for sure! lol :)

Really 2% of our food is gown organically for the reason that organic farms take way more land to produce the same yield. If we switched to organic methods, we would have to in fact farm half of the earths surface.

Organic farming threatens our wetlands, grass lands, forests ect.

"Organic Farming versus Wildlife Habitat. 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."

http://www.amazon.com/The-Truth-About-Organic-Foods/dp/0978895207

Worked for DuPont. Paid research by the Rockefeller. Oh No, No agenda there.

Eric

MG, you seem enormously confused. For instance, half of the Earth's surface will have to be farmed without present-day conventional food-porduction methods you keep saying. What does that mean? More than half the Earth's surface is ocean and lakes. Do you mean half of the Earth's dry surface? More than half of that is non-arable due to slope and/or climate. Do you mean more than half of the Earth's arable surface? Nearly all of that is already being farmed in some way.

No 50% of the earth land is not being farmed lol. Go look up your facts there. Right now only a fraction of the land is being farmed if we did it organically we would have to farm 50% of the earths land.

I am not for conventional farming. I talked about soil mining being a downfall of conventional farming.

Have you found a way to farm the ocean?

Have you found a way to farm the ocean?

I know you are trying to come up with something to make me look bad, but it just wont work ( I already did that!! ;).

No really please, did you find a way yet? You know, to farm the surface of water to grow corn.... ;)

No, I'm not trying to make you look bad, I am pointing out that many of your statements are so vague as to be meaningless.

"Ocean farming is not a modern innovation. For thousands of years cultures as diverse as the ancient Egyptians, Romans, Aztecs, and Chinese have farmed finfish, shellfish, and aquatic plants. Atlantic salmon have been farmed in Scotland since the early 1600s; seaweed was a staple food for American settlers"

Eric

More importantly, in the world's poorer nations where most of the world's hungry live, the yield gaps completely disappear. University of Essex researchers Jules Pretty and Rachel Hine looked at over 200 agricultural projects in the developing world that converted to organic and ecological approaches, and found that for all the projects-involving 9 million farms on nearly 30 million hectares-yields increased an average of 93 percent. A seven-year study from Maikaal District in central India involving 1,000 farmers cultivating 3,200 hectares found that average yields for cotton, wheat, chili, and soy were as much as 20 percent higher on the organic farms than on nearby conventionally managed ones. Farmers and agricultural scientists attributed the higher yields in this dry region to the emphasis on cover crops, compost, manure, and other practices that increased organic matter (which helps retain water) in the soils. A study from Kenya found that while organic farmers in "high-potential areas" (those with above-average rainfall and high soil quality) had lower maize yields than nonorganic farmers, organic farmers in areas with poorer resource endowments consistently outyielded conventional growers. (In both regions, organic farmers had higher net profits, return on capital, and return on labor.)

Contrary to critics who jibe that it's going back to farming like our grandfathers did or that most of Africa already farms organically and it can't do the job, organic farming is a sophisticated combination of old wisdom and modern ecological innovations that help harness the yield-boosting effects of nutrient cycles, beneficial insects, and crop synergies. It's heavily dependent on technology-just not the technology that comes out of a chemical plant."

This is why I said:

Posted by TheMasterGardener1 5B (My Page) on Fri, Nov 23, 12 at 11:29

" You know, to farm the surface of water to grow corn.... ;)"

I knew someone would try to be smart and talk about fish farms. ;)

We must have posted at the same time. You have some good info in your last post.

"Badgley's team went out of the way to make its assumptions as conservative as possible: most of the studies they used looked at the yields of a single crop, even though many organic farms grow more than one crop in a field at the same time, yielding more total food even if the yield of any given crop may be lower."

"�Can organic farming feed the world' is indeed a bogus question," says Gene Kahn, a long-time organic farmer who founded Cascadian Farms organic foods and is now vice president of sustainable development for General Mills. "The real question is, can we feed the world? Period. Can we fix the disparities in human nutrition?" Kahn notes that the marginal difference in today's organic yields and the yields of conventional agriculture wouldn't matter if food surpluses were redistributed.

But organic farming will yield other benefits that are too numerous to name. Studies have shown, for example, that the "external" costs of organic farming- erosion, chemical pollution to drinking water, death of birds and other wildlife-are just one-third those of conventional farming. Surveys from every continent show that organic farms support many more species of birds, wild plants, insects, and other wildlife than conventional farms. And tests by several governments have shown that organic foods carry just a tiny fraction of the pesticide residues of the nonorganic alternatives, while completely banning growth hormones, antibiotics, and many additives allowed in many conventional foods. There is even some evidence that crops grown organically have considerably higher levels of health-promoting antioxidants.

There are social benefits as well. Because organic farming doesn't depend on expensive inputs, it might help shift the balance towards smaller farmers in hungry nations. A 2002 report from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization noted that "organic systems can double or triple the productivity of traditional systems" in developing nations but suggested that yield comparisons offer a "limited, narrow, and often misleading picture" since farmers in these countries often adopt organic farming techniques to save water, save money, and reduce the variability of yields in extreme conditions. A more recent study by the International Fund for Agricultural Development found that the higher labor requirements often mean that "organic agriculture can prove particularly effective in bringing redistribution of resources in areas where the labour force is underemployed. This can help contribute to rural stability."

"Enough Nitrogen To Go Around?

In addition to looking at raw yields, the University of Michigan scientists also examined the common concern that there aren't enough available sources of non-synthetic nitrogen-compost, manure, and plant residues-in the world to support large-scale organic farming. For instance, in his book Enriching the Earth: Fritz Haber, Carl Bosch, and the Transformation of World Food Production, Vaclav Smil argues that roughly two-thirds of the world's food harvest depends on the Haber-Bosch process, the technique developed in the early 20th century to synthesize ammonia fertilizer from fossil fuels. (Smil admits that he largely ignored the contribution of nitrogen-fixing crops and assumed that some of them, like soybeans, are net users of nitrogen, although he himself points out that on average half of all the fertilizer applied globally is wasted and not taken up by plants.) Most critics of organic farming as a means to feed the world focus on how much manure-and how much related pastureland and how many head of livestock-would be needed to fertilize the world's organic farms. "The issue of nitrogen is different in different regions," says Don Lotter, an agricultural consultant who has published widely on organic farming and nutrient requirements. "But lots more nitrogen comes in as green manure than animal manure."

Looking at 77 studies from the temperate areas and tropics, the Michigan team found that greater use of nitrogen-fixing crops in the world's major agricultural regions could result in 58 million metric tons more nitrogen than the amount of synthetic nitrogen currently used every year. Research at the Rodale Institute in Pennsylvania showed that red clover used as a winter cover in an oat/wheat-corn-soy rotation, with no additional fertilizer inputs, achieved yields comparable to those in conventional control fields. Even in arid and semi-arid tropical regions like East Africa, where water availability is limited between periods of crop production, drought-resistant green manures such as pigeon peas or groundnuts could be used to fix nitrogen. In Washington state, organic wheat growers have matched their non-organic neighbor's wheat yields using the same field pea rotation for nitrogen. In Kenya, farmers using leguminous tree crops have doubled or tripled corn yields as well as suppressing certain stubborn weeds and generating additional animal fodder.

The Michigan results imply that no additional land area is required to obtain enough biologically available nitrogen, even without including the potential for intercropping (several crops grown in the same field at the same time), rotation of livestock with annual crops, and inoculation of soil with Azobacter, Azospirillum, and other free-living nitrogen-fixing bacteria."

"To deal with the dilemma, the first Master Gardening program was launched in 1973 by Washington State�s Cooperative Extension Service. A small cadre of volunteers underwent formal training to handle typical inquiries about lawn care, flower and vegetable gardens, pesticides, the environment and more. The volunteer force quickly proved its worth to the extension program by freeing local extension agents to focus on more traditional and technical horticulture questions.

Sounds like the Extension Agents are the masters. LOL!

Eric

I have an experimental plot in central fla where I set up and leave crops on their own. Winter in florida is semi-arid, along with the limitation of soil temps cool enough to inhibit or delay germination of many crop seeds and a few killing frosts per year. Combine this with extraordinarily impoverished native soil and the ability of certain native and invasive plants to go totally nuts in the summer heat and one has a very harsh yet interesting situation.

I am finding that as always, it's all about well-adapted legumes, some useful crops for humans, some not.

Lets then keep the double blind taste test to items purchased at a major chain grocery store that carries organic produce, around here, all of it would be shipped from California. So I'd assume a similar under-ripe harvest.

The most remarkable differences for me are celery, apples, and winter squash.

Again this refers back to the brix content. And I imagine that as with all random tests, some days there would be no taste difference, some days the organic might be more bland. But just on taste alone, I'll pop an extra 20 - 50 cents a lb for organic apples, celery, salads, and so on.

The double-blind taste test you describe would be interesting. I might try it sometime.