"So next time anyone goes and buys all organic from a farmers market thinking it is helping the environment, think again."

You are right about a local farmers market being a bit less Eco friendly, but remember you are supporting a mom and pop business. This is more political but I would rather hand my money to a family than a corporation. And come to mention it, how much of your precious woodland is your super walmart taking up? A lot. And how much is it hurting your local area? A lot. And I can't even imagine where the produce in your major retail stores even came from or how long it was stored for. I bet you get no local stuff either.

And I like the argument that nc-crn brought up. The only input I have to say though is that no matter how you do it, farming on that big of scale is not sustainable no matter how you do it. Maybe it's what we have to do, and at this point it probably is, but that doesn't make it any more Eco friendly or sustainable. By the way, like natures nature said, I believe that instead of putting more research into how we can use more pesticides, I think it should be how we can better balance the Eco system in conventional farming and lean towards a more organic approach.

"Missouri...just for an example...crops about 3,500,000 acres of corn."

We shouldn't be growing that much corn. There's no other reason besides money. The animals arent supposed to eat grain, nor should we to much. There's a reason you wouldnt be able to produce that much corn, we simpley dont really need it.

"I've used pesticides so few times in all my years I can honestly say they're a "nuclear option" when all else fails."

Yes, you understand how toxic they are?

"Synthetic fertilizers also focus on secondary macros in high levels- calcium, magnesium, sulfur... These are very important to the over all nutrition of a crop, whether sourced organic or not."

How about trace elements?

"Yes, you understand how toxic they are?"

Toxicity is relative...especially in relation to what chemical is being used, how it breaks down, what it breaks down into, and how long it takes to break down in a given environment.

I don't use them because I don't need them...because I'm in my plants scouting them regularly...because I address small issues before they become big issues...because I took the time to learn what I'm doing (growing food) rather than jumping head-first into something with more good intentions than good education.

"I've used pesticides so few times in all my years I can honestly say they're a "nuclear option" when all else fails."

"Yes, you understand how toxic they are?"

They have to be toxic enough to control the insects while not harming the plant. Same thing with organic pesticides, they have to be just as toxic to control the insects. We cant judge something right away just because it is either man made or organic. That is a:" naturalistic fallacy"- what is natural is inheritably good, and what is not natural is inheritably bad.

"They have to be toxic enough to control the insects while not harming the plant"

That's part of the problem. This is why like I said there should be more money put into research on how we could use less pesticides. Right now with the GMO's they're basically trying to figure out how they can add more pesticides without killing the plant. The problem with pesticides is that there are good insects in our soil that get killed, "super weeds" are created with a resistance to the pesticide, and I'm not entirely sure they're safe for human consumption. You keep bringing up how organic pesticides are dangerous too, but I'm not supporting that here. I'm supporting how we should steal away from pesticides all together.

"You keep bringing up how organic pesticides are dangerous too, but I'm not supporting that here. I'm supporting how we should steal away from pesticides all together."

Your title is " Is organic produce starting to increase in demand?"

Yes.Organic farms USE pesticides. The organic produce in the store had pesticides spayed on it.

"This is why like I said there should be more money put into research on how we could use less pesticides."

This is exactly what monsanto is doing. GMO crops use LESS pesticides.

" Right now with the GMO's they're basically trying to figure out how they can add more pesticides without killing the plant."

Wrong. They are doing the opposite. These new GMO crops need way less pesticides(, because they have been altered genetically to be naturally resistant) than any of these outdated crop strains that organic farmers have to use.

Non-GMO crops require more oil, work, pesticides to grow.

Its too bad so little people are informed about this.

They see non-gmo on something and think it is a good thing. The truth is, gmo crops are way more eco friendly to grow

"Your title is " Is organic produce starting to increase in demand?""

I know that's my title, but somehow we got into this other subject.

"Yes.Organic farms USE pesticides. The organic produce in the store had pesticides spayed on it."

I don't know how many times I have to tell you, I'm talking about responsible and proper organic farming.

"This is exactly what monsanto is doing. GMO crops use LESS pesticides."

I think your the one who's misinformed. Your just a sheep listening to what your boys at Monsanto are telling you. All that Monsanto is doing is making their crops resistant to their pesticides. It doesn't mean that it's any less. And they're relatively new so there isn't much out there, but I've even heard about GMOs being linked to cancer. If we want farms to be sustainable and truly Eco friendly, we have to go away from the chemicals/fertilizers.

Your argument is like saying that instead of making cars more efficient on gas, we should focus on how to make gas cheaper.

"This is exactly what monsanto is doing. GMO crops use LESS pesticides."

Where do you get that all GMO crops reduce pesticides? Some GMO crops, like bt corn, try and reduce spraying. But from what i understand, it doesnt really reduce spraying.. Contrary, some GM crops like round up ready soybeans, promote spraying, that is the my main problem..

"The truth is, gmo crops are way more eco friendly"

This is literally insanity! Especially if you take in account that we truly do not know if GM crops are even safe. Open your ears, WE DO NOT EVEN KNOW IF GM CROPS ARE SAFE.

Where do you find most GM crops? In processed food, or animal feed. But, where is the fresh nutritious healthy GM crops for a starving/growing population? Our cattle is not supposed to eat grains, so they get all kinds of nasty diseases, have to be treated with antibiotics, hormones, ammonia in ground beef,etc. The animals are severely malnourished because they are not eating the foods they are supposed to eat. The GM crops are probably malnourished to begin with because of bad farming practices, on top of that, they only give a handful of nutrients to fertilize. So we have millions of pounds of poison ridden, deficient foods that go to no good use what so ever, besides the money being made from them.. GM crops do very little good, on the flip side, they do very much harm.. We are spraying more poisons than ever, harming our health, harming our animals health, and harming the environment.

People believe that GMO crops are the most environmentally friendly plants, really?

"People believe that GMO crops are the most environmentally friendly plants, really?"

Thank you. It's a shame these people actually believe this and then try to call us out. But I'm pretty much done with master gardener, I don't know if you saw but he claimed that food in the big retail stores is more Eco friendly then farmers markets.

It is more than a shame, it's Our future. If it was a mere shame, i wouldn't waste my time..

Master gardener did bring up some good points, however. Organic farms need much improvement. Our whole entire ag system needs improvement. That is what i keep redundantly repeating. I am merely pushing for a more healthy, non toxic, way to do things. I am merely pushing for the truth, and what i feel is right.

1. We shouldn't introduce foods into the food system until they are 100% proven safe

2. We should not invest all these resources in something that is a mere gamble, we don't even know if its safe

3. We should not introduce hundreds of acres of GMO crops to the outside world, until we are 100% sure of all the consequences.

3. We should not have any toxins, especially synthetic toxins on or around our food.

4. We should feed our animals what they are meant to be fed.

5. We should feed ourselves what we are meant to be fed.

6. We should feed the soil what its meant to be fed.

All these things are just common sense, common sense goes along way.

It is more than a shame, it's Our future. If it was a mere shame, i wouldn't waste my time..

Master gardener did bring up some good points, however. Organic farms need much improvement. Our whole entire ag system needs improvement. That is what i keep redundantly repeating. I am merely pushing for a more healthy, non toxic, way to do things. I am merely pushing for the truth, and what i feel is right.

1. We shouldn't introduce foods into the food system until they are 100% proven safe

2. We should not invest all these resources in something that is a mere gamble, we don't even know if its safe

3. We should not introduce hundreds of acres of GMO crops to the outside world, until we are 100% sure of all the consequences.

3. We should not have any toxins, especially synthetic toxins on or around our food.

4. We should feed our animals what they are meant to be fed.

5. We should feed ourselves what we are meant to be fed.

6. We should feed the soil what its meant to be fed.

All these things are just common sense, common sense goes along way.

"Your argument is like saying that instead of making cars more efficient on gas, we should focus on how to make gas cheaper."

No. My argument is quite literally like saying- making cars more efficient on gas, and cheaper."

Simple economics. GMO-making crops that are LESS pollutive per pounds produced due to the reasons I listed above in my other posts.

Organic crops use more-gas/time/money/land/ to grow making them more pollutive to grow at the scale that is needed to fit our populations needs.

What a joke.

As you can see my brain is working at full capacity with all of the nutrients I have consumed from inorganic produce....

"As you can see my brain is working at full capacity with all of the nutrients I have consumed from inorganic produce...."

Is that supposed to be a joke? You are starting to sound like a spammer. No one said that eating inorganic was going to kill brain cells. And if anything inorganic produce has less nutrients...

Perhaps it's the beneficial effects from the pesticides.

"Is that supposed to be a joke? You are starting to sound like a spammer. No one said that eating inorganic was going to kill brain cells. And if anything inorganic produce has less nutrients..."

"And if anything inorganic produce has less nutrients"

Scientifically, that makes NO sense at all.....

Read my above posts to find out why....

Almost 30 percent of the corn grown in the USA is used for ethanol with almost 50 percent used for animal feed which is one reason the cost of food for humans is getting so high.
The shills for the synthetic farming industry that appear here keep repeating the same fudgey facts that have been shown by reputable researchers to be in error. Rather then spending your time and energy arguing with them ignore them.

Kimmsr,

I'm glad to see someone view this subject from my perspective. I almost thought i was the crazy one..

Again, why are we growing so much corn? It's sure not for health or starving people. After all, Corn is not even that nutritious. And of course, the millions of animals were raising for food is only as good as the deficient corn, but even if the corn was nutritious, our cattle is not designed to eat it. Just like corn was not designed with BT. It was created that way for a reason.

"Again, why are we growing so much corn?"

...mostly because people like to eat meat...and they want good cuts without paying a lot of money for it. This is a rather new phenomenon since the 1970s for most of the US that doesn't live near meat processing centers. The "beef roast" and whole roasted chicken used to be pinnacle of middle class...now it's New York strip steaks and boneless chicken breasts.

Animals eat most of the corn...and we eat them (well, those that choose to eat meat).

The amount of corn that goes into chips and other foods is rather miniscule...heck, sweet corn + corn-on-the-cob is a blip on the corn radar.

Long story short...cheap meat production...and even without subsidies it would still be their #1 feed source.

As far as animals not being "designed" to eat corn...animals we eat for meat are not "designed" to live long. The fact you can get a hog to slaughter size in 5 months or a chicken from egg-to-slaughter in less than 2 months is a testament to an animal that was selectively bred to die young. If they lived full lives, it would not be a happy life. If some people think what we, as humans, are doing with dog breed selection and health issues/genetics are bad...the meat industry would terrorize them...and this is before we put a single antibiotic, medication, hormone, or food type in them.

Nccrn,

I'm glad to hear the honesty in your last posts, i appreciate it. Im also glad that you "kinda" get a little of what i am saying.

"As far as animals not being "designed" to eat corn...animals we eat for meat are not "designed" to live long. "

Thats interesting, because carnivores tend not to live very long either..

"Long story short...cheap meat production...and even without subsidies it would still be their #1 feed source."

Not only is it cheap meat, it is low quality, and lacking the nutrients wild game, or properly raised animal tissue would have. Not even getting into the chemicals, hormones, antibiotics, arsenic, etc..

"We" are doing everything half ass, as cheap as possible, harming our health, harming our animals, harming our environment, for what? A bloody steak? We all know how healthy red meat is, especially the excess we eat nowadays. Is it really worth the gamble?

"Is it really worth the gamble?"

Alcohol (ethanol) is a Group 1 carcinogen linked to 5%-ish of all cancers...tobacco contains many Group 1 carcinogens linked to 20%-ish of all cancers. Even a lot of people who won't touch a cigarette/cigar will knock down multiple 5-20%+ by volume glasses of alcohol over the course of a night/week/month.

People gamble with their health all the time. Meat consumption isn't very high on a lot of people's worry lists. The best most people do is try to not eat too much red meat or wild-caught fish/shellfish from sketchy waters (which is a lot of them these days).

"Alcohol (ethanol) is a Group 1 carcinogen linked to 5%-ish of all cancers...tobacco contains many Group 1 carcinogens linked to 20%-ish of all cancers. Even a lot of people who won't touch a cigarette/cigar will knock down multiple 5-20%+ by volume glasses of alcohol over the course of a night/week/month."

If it's a carcinogen, harmful to us, or the environment, it should be banned, that simple. No amount of money is worth living in a toxic slew.

The cattle, for the most part, only get fed grain/corn in the last year or so of their lives. A lot of professional chefs prefer to use corn fed beef.

I also talked to hunters that said the pheasant they hunt has gotten tastier over the years due to the large corn fields they tend to fly down on and 'graze'. The more food the pheasants eat, the healthier they are.

This post was edited by TheMasterGardener1 on Thu, Dec 19, 13 at 16:46

"The cattle, for the most part, only get fed grain/corn in the last year or so of their lives. "

Where do you get your information from?

"This gets them a lot of fat, and contributes to the marbleization of the meat cuts. "

Feeding cows corn contributes to a sick cow, and poor quality meat. Take a visit to a slaughter house, see for yourself. Cows being fed an improper diet(corn) actually have lower quality meat.

"A lot of professional chefs prefer to use corn fed beef."

Funny, it's well known that most chefs prefer organic.

"The more food the pheasants eat, the healthier they are."

The more food the healthier, really? We already see where that gets you.

"The more food the healthier, really? We already see where that gets you."

Either over weight, or very strong.

Depending on caloric deficit.

Sure, I dont think it is ok to have cattle trapped their whole life in a cattle house close to each other. I am just saying a lot of 'corn' fed beef graze in an open field then are rounded up at the last year of their life into the cattle yard, or what have you, and fed plenty of corn to get them up in weight ect.

This post was edited by TheMasterGardener1 on Thu, Dec 19, 13 at 19:28

"Sure, I dont think it is ok to have cattle trapped their whole life in a cattle house close to each other."

Well, That's the persona you give to others. That is what you're supporting when you taut GMO and conventional produce like you do.

Hey look what I found in a few mins of research. What I have been saying before this whole time about gmo crops using less pesticides and increased yield -

"Critics say that GM-crops only benefit the big seed manufacturers. What is your experience?
Well if you look at pest resistant GM cotton in Burkina Faso, the experience is quite positive. If you compare the local, non-modified cotton to the genetically modified variety you see a yield increase of about 30 percent. The increase changes with the pest challenge, the more insects the greater the difference you will see."

"The use of insecticides, and therefore costs for the farmers, decreases as well. Normally you have to spray six times, with the GM cotton you have to spray about two times. This also benefits the health of the farmers handling the insecticides."

Source: http://knowledge.allianz.com/environment/food_water/?503/will-gm-crops-feed-africa

"Hey look what I found in a few mins of research"

That's the problem. With a few minutes of research I can find all the benefits of GM crops too. But if you take the time to look more into the actual problems (i.e. sustainability and safety of the products) and even some potential problems, they are out there too. And even if GM crops do offer a small benefit, you have to wonder if the benefit is worth the risk. I would rather have money go into something that will be beneficial and safe.

Naturalistic Fallacy- the claim that what is natural is inherently good or right, and that what is unnatural is inherently bad or wrong.

This post was edited by TheMasterGardener1 on Sat, Dec 21, 13 at 11:08

Thoroughly entertaining thread.

Lloyd

We are way under estimating soil erosion.
Row cropping needs to be cut back regardless of organic
or conventional.

We need to eat more goat.
It has a much high feed conversion ratio than beef cattle.

We need to eat more duck and goose.
They will eat far more forage than a chicken.

KJV Isaiah 51:6 - ... the earth shall wax old like a garment ...
In other words, someday our soils will become threadbare.

We are way under estimating how scarce fossil fuel and chemical
fertilizers will become under a war time scenario.

And we are way under estimating climate change.
Grains suffer far more under extreme climate than forage systems.

We need whole systems where foraging hogs follow cattle to gain
efficiency from coprophagia.

We need systems where sheep are used instead of mowing.

We need blood and bone worked back into the soil where
it came from.

We need to eat more fruits that are easy to grow without
pesticides and herbicides instead of the tastiest fruit
that cannot survive without being constantly sprayed.

We even need GMO that are tested properly.

We need to completely rethink everything.
Including what we eat.
We will spend ourselves into banckrupty given our
current dietary practices.

Here is a link that might be useful: Garden For Nutrition

This post was edited by GreeneGarden on Mon, Dec 23, 13 at 19:38

Why did you delete what you said GreeneGarden, I though it was pretty good

You did change the direction of the discussion, but that's alright because this discussion has already been far off my original question, which is whether or not organic is increasing in demand. That's alright though because I enjoyed the discussion. But I agree with your view on the fact that the whole system of the way we farm needs to change. I do believe that in the system we have now, organic is the better way to go, but then again the system we have now can be improved on.

" I do believe that in the system we have now, organic is the better way to go, but then again the system we have now can be improved on."

Did you know gm crops, organic farmers cant use gm crops btw, need less tillage there for cut down on soil erosion? They also need less pesticides, and yes, organic farmers use plenty of harmful pesticides..

mike758, I see more and more organic foods available around here. I bought some swiss chard the other day and the organic was the same price as the non-organic. Didn't check the other produce. BTW, the stickers on the produce you buy has a 4 digit number on it. if it starts with 3 or 4, that indicates pesticides and or herbicides were used in the growing. If it starts with the number 9, it is organic and if starts with the number 8 it is GMO. Nothing starting with the number 8 comes to our house.

PLU codes are a guideline, but they aren't official or universally adopted. You'll be hard pressed to see any PLU labeled GMO sweet corn or GMO papaya (none that I know of)...same for the 3/4 pesticide/herbicide thing (which I have never heard of).

It's mostly a supplier/inventory management tool rather than a consumer tool.

This post was edited by nc-crn on Sat, Dec 28, 13 at 20:14

I've heard about the code thing before, and I'm pretty sure it's accurate whether it says organic or not. The problem though is since GMOs aren't required to be labelled, I've heard this doesn't apply to them. But most fresh food is currently not GMO at this point anyways

mike758, I was checking these labels at a couple of supermarkets, which are not sku numbers btw, and the organics that were labeled and the non-organics that were labeled with the extra tag were 3/4 or 9. Obviously, I found no label starting with the number 8 because they are not required to and they don't want you to know that information. JMO

Just throwing this out for what it's worth. A local radio Chinese specialist doctor made the statement that the corn produced today vs corn tested 25 years ago that one of the universities tested. The nutrient value today of the corn took 30 bushels of GMO corn today to equal one bushel of non GMO corn from 25 years ago. If that doesn't scare you about GMO, then nothing will.

"The nutrient value today of the corn took 30 bushels of GMO corn today to equal one bushel of non GMO corn from 25 years ago. If that doesn't scare you about GMO, then nothing will."

What's scary is taking that at face value as a fact.

What nutrients? What amounts?

This would make very little sense. Even if it was 2 times more than it is today, corn would be a super-food giving you 50-100+% of your daily requirement of 10+ nutrients. An unreal amount of health food stores would be growing/stocking heirloom corn varieties and making extracts from it.

30 times more would be practically poisonous for some of those nutrients, especially if you ate more than one serving of corn a day.

Here are some good studies -- at least from the descriptions there seem to be some well designed ones -- that show some higher nutrient levels in organic foods, and the specific nutrients are named.

Some of the studies also demonstrate the higher levels of harmful pesticides in conventional foods, such as the study that measured the levels in the urine of children from two groups, one eating conventional and one eating organic.

And the value of organic methods for soil microbiology and carbon sequestration and the like is also mentioned in some studies.

I would like to note that the "source" for information in the posts by TMG1 on this thread is primarily a propaganda pamphlet paid for and produced by big AG (it's a circuitous route, which was described to him last year when he was last here touting these fictional "facts" but he didn't believe that his source was inherently flawed, and so he's come back armed with misinformation again.) If anyone really wants to know the route and how the pamphlet came to be sold on Amazon, I can lay it all out again.

Here is a link that might be useful: nutritional values, pesticide levels, value to soil in organic foods

Thanks elisa_Z5 . I have done quite a bit of research myself on the issue and pretty much came to the same conclusions which you can probably see in my arguments. I actually did a research project on GMO's. I actually want to try some small scale experiments on my own now about all of this. And you are right about themastergardener, pretty much all their "research" is monsanto propaganda, I picked up on it pretty quick, especially since I did my own research. I'm ignoring them now because they simply keep trying to come back at me with big ag propaganda... I also looked at your link btw

I imagine that foods grown on truly healthy soil and harvested at the peak of maturity, stored properly, and prepared healthily would be more nutrient dense than foods raised to produce the maximum yield. That said, I think that producing all the food organically would not be possible...unless we went to a lettuce diet or thereabouts.

Upon reading quite a bit from older gardening books, it was frightening to see the amount of lead arsenate used for insect control and this was from a day of using a lot of manure. Even though things were more organic, there were crop failures and bad bugs no less.

My point is that two schools have pretty well lined up here..Yes we can and No, we can't. I think that the truth for our present economy is somewhere inbetween

The issue people tend to forget that I worry about is long term sustainability. A lot of synthetic fertilizers are made from bi-products in the petroleum industry, which isn't an industry we should rely on heavily. With pesticides and herbicides there's an issue with bugs and weeds becoming resistant. This is something that has been already occurring for years. And once they become resistant you got to use a higher concentration which isn't safe. Another thing I don't like is Monsanto's terminating seeds. If Monsanto becomes a monopoly in the seed industry and some thing were to happen to Monsanto, what would we do?

And I know there are flaws with sustainability with some organic methods, but I feel overall it's more sustainable and we can't steer completely away from it.

"And once they become resistant you got to use a higher concentration which isn't safe"

This is not always true. As an example, there are some wild oats that are resistant to some herbicides. With proper management techniques, the problem can often be controlled without increasing herbicides. It may also possible to achieve a high rate of control without any herbicide application.

Lloyd

Here is a link that might be useful: A Five-Step Strategy To Decrease Wild Oats

Lloyd, It seems, like the poor, we always have had weeds. I suppose that they do some good by deep rooting and making organic matter. Still, it might help if some would quit sowing so many 'wild oats'.

A most interesting thread, especially demonstrations of propaganda from the ever present MG persona. MG popped up over at HT complaining about h/is treatment here and started posting the same horse puckey there with the added insult of editing out most of what was the meat of the posts. We didn't appreciate the unwillingness of this person to post links in support of the insufferable BS being advanced.