> Being scientific is not always enough Let's look at another field
> besides organic gardening.
>
> I believe that so called "big ag" is fairly scientific. The ag
> colleges and the research centers are "all in" for higher yields,
> higher grower profits, and better methods and better grain
> storage to achieve those goals.
>
> Trouble is that the end products are not as healthy to the
> consumer...yet the industry is fairly scientific.

Science does not inherently support "big ag" _or_ organic gardening. With limited exceptions, the people who pay the scientists decide what science will accomplish - not, of course, what discoveries are made, but certainly they control the areas in which discoveries are sought. Big ag pays a lot more scientists than organic gardeners and farmers do, so there are more scientists working on the goals of higher yields and higher profits, and fewer scientists working on the goals of the health of the consumer and the environment.

But that's not about science. That's about money.

Science is neither good or bad. Science can, and does, serve organic gardening very well, in the person of scientists that believe in the goals of organic gardening and who will work for those goals in spite of the limited amount of money driving them.

Organic gardening is inherently based in science, and it's a mistake to reject science merely because others can afford to pay for more of it. It would be better to find ways to pay for more scientists to work on the goals of organic gardening and farming.

I think mentioning Stalin may qualfy as a variation of Godwin's Law.

Here is a link that might be useful: Godwin's Law

Not in that usage I don't believe. I didn't accuse anyone of acting like him, just the opposite. And Lysenko fit well. (I was aware of the "Law" and have oft seen it in action.)

Extreme defensiveness and rejoined accusations to any questioning of basics is another common sign of a faith-based (dare I say, cultish) system.

Science thrives on, nay depends upon, aggressive questioning of both basics and the details alike.

Again let me assure you, I wouldn't demean even prayers to the Corn God, but I would like better to understand what makes some of the practitioners tick. The howls of those who think I am apostate, or worse, beyond the pale, don't help much except to reaffirm that among them there are beliefs held more strongly, and without presented appropriate evidence, than one would normally find among scientists. That is just precisely part of my point. I knew this existed, a degree of faith.

The question was, however, are there those who support and believe in the many and varied values of "organic gardening" (in its broad meaning) but also rigorously examine the evidence related to it, both empirical and theoretical evidence. People who, for instance, and just to start with, know that there is no essential agronomic difference between copper sulfate mined somewhere and copper sulfate made in a chemical plant, insofar as its use as a fungicide is concerned. Or people who might realize that their cooking up of lime sulfur from burnt limestone and sulfur mimics the "burning" and manufacture in a chemical factory. There is no natural lime sulfur.

Who among the broad group chooses what works and what makes sense in rational (rigorous) examination and rejects the dogma, the fluff, the chaff? (Note, if one were in fact trying to be derogatory there are a lot of other more-pointed terms and a lot of examples that could be raised, but that is not my purpose.)

Personally, I was more interested in fertilization and fertility and tilth matters and how well organic practices stand up to scrutiny because these practices are desirable in many other ways.

But I have also sadly concluded that discussion with true-believers is pointless. You get reaction rather than discussion. Certainly not reliable information.

But my (now rhetorical) question remains, are there persons who think like scientists who are trying to make organic gardening work, insofar as it can work, with a clear eye as to what works, why, and what doesn't so well, and why?

Along these same lines, the first post is excellent (and by one who posts here too BTW).

I'll bet he speaks for many.

http://forums2.gardenweb.com/forums/load/soil/msg111632373684.html?18

I hadn't heard of Godwin's law. Didn't take long to get there in this thread, did it?

"reductio ad Hitlerum". That's pretty funny.

GB, it's nearly impossible to read this thread and NOT conclude that you're intentionally baiting people so you can feel justified in spewing pompous tripe. While the question inherent in this debate is a valid and interesting one, the condescending, insulting comments you've made throughout have really fouled the waters. Please don't use this forum as a venue to arrogantly posture and denigrate. If you need to prove that you're right, try not to prove that you're a jerk at the same time.

Thanks.

Re:

"But my (now rhetorical) question remains, are there persons who think like scientists who are trying to make organic gardening work, insofar as it can work, with a clear eye as to what works, why, and what doesn't so well, and why?"

Yes. The answer is yes. Your refusal to hear the answer reflects a rather unscientific attitude on your part. If you want to read about some scientific, but home-scale, experiments by organic gardeners, read the book I recommended a few posts up. No doubt you will find a way to tell us that the author of that book, a Harvard-educated biologist, is untutored in science; I hope that you won't be _too_ surprised when I'm not convinced. But go ahead and call me defensive when I try to tell you that Harvard is not entirely populated with idiots.

I've given you a reference. So give us one. Please tell us about the highly scientific practices of conventional gardeners.

When the average suburban conventional gardener chooses a new pesticide, he no doubt scientifically compares several options. How does he set up that trial? How many different products does he trial, and what does he use as the control? How many plants does he use for each trial patch? How does he ensure that each trial patch has identical conditions? How does he ensure that there is no insecticide overspray so that the patch for Trial Pesticide A doesn't get accidentally get any of Pesticide B sprayed on it? Is shielding overspray sufficient, or does he instead need to locate each patch on a different property, or at least a few hundred yards apart, to avoid any cross-contamination?

What criteria does he use for evaluating the pesticide? No doubt he weighs the good harvest, the harvest destroyed by the target insect, and the harvest destroyed by anything else - anything short of that would be unscientific, because it would ignore side effects. For example, an insecticide that reduces worm damage but also reduces pollination might result in zero damaged fruit, but also a smaller amount of perfect fruit than would have been achieved without the insecticide. Also, how does he decide where to categorize harvest damaged by more than one thing?

Surely he also carefully logs:

- Seedling survival.
- Days to harvest.
- Days of harvest.
- Quantity of nutrients in the harvest.
and so on.

There's of course no chance that a conventional gardener would just go to the store, ask an employee what will kill the bugs, and grab a product. That wouldn't fulfill the highly scientific standards that, we now understand from you, are an essential characteristic of the average conventional home gardener.

Now, is there _any chance whatsoever_ that you'd like to actually talk about science? I rather doubt it, but, hey, I may post something anyway.

"Conventional" agriculture accepts that problems with insect pests and plant diseases are a normal part of growing plants and therefore you need to spray, dust, or otherwise apply copious quantities of poisons to keep your food and flowers from disappearing before your very eyes. Many people that come here, to an organic gardening forum also believe that while some of us know that you do not need to apply large amounts of poisons to save your garden if you get your soil into a good healthy condition so the plants growing in that soil are strong and healthy.
Rather then it being organic gardeners and farmers that are relying on myth and psuedo science it is the "conventional" gardeners and farmers that are. "Conventional" gardening and farming, relying as they do on unsustainable practices and materials, are not the wave of the future. Being an organic gardener/farmer requires much more knowledge about what you are doing then does practicing "conventional" gardening/farming.

I am an engineer...but not a scientist. Anyway, I garden "semi-organically". In other words, it's organic until organic ceases to work, or, the non-organic solution is relatively benign, such as using RoundUp to kill off something, etc. (Please don't start a RU fight).

I try to use organic fertilizer, since I believe the health of the soil is very important, but if it reaches a point where a plant is unhealthy and a chemical can "fix" it, I'll do it.

Same with pesticides - I have an informal "IPM" type arrangement with my fruits and veggies, but for certain pests, I've had to break out the chemicals, and will do so, if I have no other option left.

I also don't hesitate to use pesticides INSIDE my home, since my wife has the attitude of "if it's a bug in my house, kill it as fast and swiftly as possible".

I have no degree in plant science.
I am of the green thumb group, but do not believe that organic gardening will end hunger or save the planet,just because I do not spray my plant to kill bugs.
I feel Organic gardening is best for me, but I do not worship it or turn a blind eye to any other system.
I for one find nothing wrong with the OP Question.
If what you are doing is right then a closer look will not hurt.

I think what the OP is trying to say is there can be many organic growers that look down upon those that don't use organics. I in fact, I used to be one of them. After doing a little research it is clear there is very little difference in nutrition in crops grown organic or in-organically. With that said, using organic methods is all about feeding the soil and creating soil. Conventional farms look at the field soil like a grow medium and a anchor for plant roots. They till for air, and fertilze with inorganic fertilizer for nutrition not really needing or allowing the soil to be full of micro life.

Growing in the earth organic just makes sense. With good practice sure synthetics can be used safely but organic methods do add and build soil every year.

Thanks.

MG1, did you do that research with a brix meter?

I did, and the results were that organic produce from the mainstream supply always scores higher than conventional, though not necessarily by much. When I did find scores in the acceptable range or better, it was always for organic produce.

Great topic and resulting discussion. Here is my take....

There may be two major reasons to venture into Organic Gardening. "spirituality" or "science". There may be many various sub branches that fall under those big umbrellas, but in general those are your primary two reasons.

Perhaps you think living in harmony with the planet and ecosystem is a better spiritual pursuit and will have an effect on you in the afterlife (as well as the current life). Perhaps you have read some stodies that organically grown food is higher in nutritional value and taste than comercially grown food.

So You can get to Organics both ways, the question you seem to be asking is, is there some validation of the people in the spiritual camp, because the science happens to show that thier "belief" has merit? Well to a scientific mind, no, there is no validation of someone's immesurable belief system, based on the fact that there is scientific data that supports it. That would just be coincidence.

However, to the Spiritual, yes it does help to validate thier belief system to others who view the world more spiritually than scientifically.

From my perspective, which may be somewhat unique, I believe it does validate "organic" and I believe they validate eachother. I think as science progresses, we are going to find more and more that we are being guided spiritualy, at a gut level, to do what works best in the real physical, scientific world.

CH

I doubt it.

rig�or�ous adj \ˈri-g(ə-)rəs\

Definition of RIGOROUS
1 : manifesting, exercising, or favoring rigor : very strict
2 a : marked by extremes of temperature or climate
b : harsh, severe
3 : scrupulously accurate : precise

Gardening small scale organic is a good idea.

__________________
Large scale ag is what is a issue, not synthetics.

In fact, organic large scale farms can pollute even more moving compost and heavy organic material here and there. Conventional farms spread fertilizer in one easy application using way less gas. I think organic farming is way over rated and I am a little tired of just of how over rated it is. It is mass ag that is doing damage. It is not in-organics that are bad, it is large scale ag and over population.

"I doubt it.

rig�or�ous adj \ˈri-g(ə-)rəs\

Definition of RIGOROUS
1 : manifesting, exercising, or favoring rigor : very strict
2 a : marked by extremes of temperature or climate
b : harsh, severe
3 : scrupulously accurate : precise"

I don't!

Posted by RpR_ 3-4 (My Page) on Tue, Jul 24, 12 at 15:36

"I doubt it.
rig�or�ous adj \ˈri-g(ə-)rəs\

Definition of RIGOROUS
1 : manifesting, exercising, or favoring rigor : very strict
2 a : marked by extremes of temperature or climate
b : harsh, severe
3 : scrupulously accurate : precise"

Haha so true RpR.

Everyone that gives into the organic hype does not care or understand science. Glad I found this post!

Sorry should have been.

Everyone that gives into the organic hype does not care ABOUT, or understand science.

I remember when I was going through formal education the 'scientific method' meant being able to repeat an experiment and demonstrate the same quantifiable results. If other can verify a particular claim, then we can accept it until something proves it to be an error.

Around this area potatoes grown in sand under irrigation does indeed pollute the ground water, but we like our french fries and we can't seem to turn a profit unless we have a constant supply of nitrates being applied and flushed through the sands.

There is no way to organically build up the millions of acreas producing food around the country, but perhaps we could figure out the correct equation of nitrate applications that supply energy ONLY to the plants.

Sound science could likely help us clean up the waterways over time, but phony belief systems and political special interests do not allow sound science to function.

"There is no way to organically build up the millions of acreas producing food around the country,"

We could if we reduced the amount of food coming off those acres and increased the amount of bio-mass that remained. That would require paying farmers to improve the land, and that money could only come from government through taxpayers.

We could tax the 40%, who are not paying any taxes now.
But real change in any large system takes many years, as well as money.

Actually, the years of growing massive amounts of potatoes and ploughing under the vines, have increased the OM in the sands.

So the clearly OM could be increased greatly in any soil if that were the main goal rather than resource extraction.

Pat, Clearly, farmers are not into farmering for the sake of charity, but rather to make some profit.

One result of chemical fertilizing is more biomass and more organic matter.

Farmers do not make much profit, if they do not build up the soil with OM. There is a conscious effort on the part of any successful farmer I know build up the biomass/SOM of their soils to be even more productive the following year. My only problem with them is, that the constant pounding of nitrates into the water table with irigation is excessive, IMHO.
Here is where rigorous scientific thought applied to the real world is a good idea. My research concludes that we could get by with less of both, water and fertilzers. :)

I agree compeletely, both irrigation and fertilization are significantly overdone in most cases. My anecdotal observation is that in non-arid climates irrigation is simply used as a form of insurance. In the majority of seasons it isn't necessary to make a crop, but it leverages the labor and inputs. The run-off for the most part isn't the farmer's problem.

I used to grow organic before I got into science.

How did they grow crops for thousands of years before science was invented?

Time and lot and lots of work....

probably didn't have time to go to the gym.

Science has always existed.

The wide spread use of petro-based fertilizers came after the turn of the century, and really took off following WWII - about the time pesticides came into use as well.

Something we tend to forget - mankind has only been doing this for, what, 60-70 years?

At the link is a timeline of farming in the USA - note the tons of commercial fertilizer use expand. It would be interesting to see when and how much pesticides have been used.

Here is a link that might be useful: llink

That's a nice listing, David52.

I have a link too. Here you can link and read mostly older books and see how things were done in the past.

Here is a link that might be useful: Cornell farm library

When I was born( Mid 50s ) Grandma was a conventional Gardener. No chemicals, put grass clippings ,leaves and kitchen scraps on the garden to get rid of them and besides , they were good for the garden. Twigs and sticks were put in a pile and burned. The ashes were spread on the garden to get rid of them. Besides, it was good for the garden. Going fishing? Had to stop at the garden and dig up some worms. Tomato have a spot on it? Throw it over on the edge of the garden for the birds. I garden like that. I thought I was a normal gardener. Then someone told me I wasn't normal, I was organic. And people who used chemicals are conventional gardeners. Now people who use chemicals Want their chemicals and magic potions to be organic. So their garden can look like mine without putting in the time and effort. myluck wannabee's I guess. Thank you for noticing.

We also tend to forget things like locust swarms that totally wipe out crops.

Ok I have been reading this thred for awhile and I guess I'll respond wilth my 2 cents worth. Am I a scientist no. I am a gardner in my mid 60s who is basicly lazy. My wife and turned our garden into an organic garden over a period of many years about 6 years ago we took the leap to go totally organic because like I say I am lazy. I found through the years that I couldn't grow cabbage brusell sprouts and the like in the spring but if I planted in the fall and used row covers I could grow just fine at first one gets worms on the leaves then it frost then freezes and then no worms. I found that in the spring we got aphids on some plants but If I didn't get to excited the lady bugs came and took care of my problem sure we lost some things but we have learned what to do and not do. Because we observed what was happening we evolved into a near organic yard. Our garden I think could be discribed as large having at this time 9 4x16 beds we also have grapes fruit trees and blueberries and blackberries We dont' loose much throughout the year to bugs but do loose quite a bit to birds coons and other critters. We keep records about what we planted and where and when and make adjustments yearly due to those observations. I should add we learned to garden from my mother in law. She taught us how to use chemicals such as arsnic of lead, 7 and other (good) chemicals to rid our garden of pest. Over the years we could see that these were not a good thing and weened ourself of them. Round up is difficult to ween yourself from because it does such a good job of keeping down bermuda grass arround the perimeter of the garden. We still have a gal or two in a shed but have not used it in years. Gardening is about what works for you and for us its much easier with raised beds, heavy mulch, little or no use of chemicals organic or otherwise and observation.

Science (& Technology) is a good servant, a bad master, and an even worse religion.

Science is great. Many can use it in a good way or a bad way.

'Are there organic gardeners who are also rigorous scientists?'

This post was edited by TheMasterGardener1 on Sun, Dec 23, 12 at 0:34

"'Are there organic gardeners who are also rigorous scientists?'

No."

Oh, I dunno. I know at least a dozen scientists, PhD's in several fields, who religiously garden organically. In fact at the university where these people work, I'd bet that the vast majority of PhDs in the assorted science departments will pop for organic produce. Which is why one often finds the best selections of organic produce and great farmers markets in college and university towns.

As do the vast majority of medical doctors.

Phds also purchase Ritalin and Arecipt for artificially mind altering synthetic miracles.
david52, that is NOT relevant to our discussion.
It's OK. We've been dominated by the Elitists for a long time now and understand how it's done. :)

PhDs also produce many of the plants/food you eat...and probably most of the clothes you wear...etc.

The sugar snap pea could have been produced by a "normal guy" who had 10s of acres of land, a ton of free time, access to an extreme amount of breeding stock, and knowledge or proper pea hybridization aligning in some perfect storm...but it took until the 1970s a guy with a PhD to bring it to the world.

Many hybrids we take for granted are produced in ways that would blow some people's minds. Anther culture for dihaploid pepper breeding to speed the time to get breeding stock stable and bring a true-to-type pepper to market is not only amazing (and may make little sense to some people here), it's practically impossible to do outside of a sterile lab situation...and the process to do this was created by people with...PhDs. This isn't GMO...it's as natural as propagating a plant via cutting...it's just done on a smaller plant cellular level...and it's nothing short of amazing.

You can't chalk this up to elitism. You use it even if you don't appreciate it.

I have to admit that the hybrid sugar snap pea is an amazing creature. To have full-size mature peas within a super-thick, still succulent edible pod is very remarkable. But like other hybrid cultivars that require that kind of specialist knowledge and environment to re-produce every year, I don't plan to ever see it again after the apocalypse.

Which was supposed to be yesterday; now I had to pick a new date.

I use the term 'hybrid' loosely. Most OP varieties are stabilized hybrids or come naturally true to type after initial hybridization. Peas and beans are good about this.

Finding the parent material that makes the magic can be a bit of work, though.

Myself, I've created (independently, as a hobbyist) my own sweet pepper which took many years and generations of breeding to form a mostly-stable (pod segment variation not stabilized) sweet pepper. The plant is very vigorous and produces thick-as-bell-pepper walls, but you're as likely to get 2 segment peppers as you are 3 segment peppers...and the occasional 4 segment pepper (uncommon, but happens) all on the same plant. If I wanted to spend more time in creating my ideal 3-segment pepper I could have, but this was a minor feature in what I was trying to develop. It comes true to type for the major things I considered important.

Fwiw, I freely distributed the seed with no ownership or further development strings attached.

"I don't plan to ever see it again after the apocalypse.
Which was supposed to be yesterday; now I had to pick a new date."

You can pretty well count on the apocaloypse not being when someone predicts it to be...for it is at a 'time you think not.'

I have never really had a sport or such that was feasible. Burbank developed his new varieties by planting a large number and selecting the few that headed in the direction he wanted to go. He repeated this until he had a stable variety.

I have a big garden that is always experimental. I am in upper state New York. We have tried products that contain Sumagrow biosoil additive. We really noticed the improvement in size of our vegetables with little or no care involved. Tall Harvest was the product . We bought in from the www.topsoilusa.com site - good luck

Here is a link that might be useful: Topsoilusa Organic Fertilizers

If I was in upstate NY bottomland soil I would sure not be needing "biosoil" additive. Good grief.

I like this question/point the OP gave!

-"I merely ask does anyone approach it with eyes wide open, critically aware of the both benefits AND limitations? And aware of the snake-oil aspect of many who peddle or preach to it?"

Snake-oil

inscrutable.

Every biological function has limits at both ends. We can only take in so much oxygen, water, and minerals/vitamins in a healthy climate/environment to thrive.

Same with plants and soil life. Once you reach that upper limit, there is nothing more to add or to do.

On the other end of the spectrum we discover how much stress a plant can handle before it dies.

Perhaps we like to over-complicate things that are imaginary and that is what allows snake oil to gain popularity. :)