[KYHeirloomer]

>via the water they use, its from the same place <

Chefhow, if this is indeed true, then you are saying that the conventional farm has contaminated the water table with its use of synthetic chemicals. Your argument is therefore an admission that conventional farming poisons the environment.

Putting aside the public health issues that infers, it's also a good argument for using organic methods.

And how do you justify something being a poison when it's in the water, but being safe and beneficial when it coats your tomatoes?

And for those who care about facts rather than emotional pronouncements and urban legends: the cross-contamination issue isn't about ground water. It's about run-off. What happens when a conventional farmer uphill waters his crops, and the chemical residue runs off into the fields of an organic grower?

This is a very real problem in the agricultural community right now.

>Its more expensive because the farmer feels that they need to be one with the earth and do it by hand, hence my reason in the begining. <

It would be nice if you didn't confuse back-to-the-land activists with real market growers.

I suggest that you visit a couple of organic farms---both small diverse ones, and the organic divisions of factory farms---and see how things are being done. It's obvious that you have no idea how things are grown in either case. I know all kinds of organic market growers, all across the country. Every one of them owns tractors, and cultivators, and all the other necessary accountrements of market growing. If you're impressed with equipment you need to check out the self-propelled, multi-row vacumns used by the factory farms to "control" insect pests. Talk about gee-whiz technology! But it sure ain't doing things by hand.

It's bad enough that the average consumer has no idea where his food comes from or how it gets to the market. It's positively scary when a so-called professional is equally in the dark.

There are all sorts of reasons why produce grown on diverse organic farms is more expensive to produce, none of which include doing things as if we were back in the early 19th century.

>.....and via the pollination of crops. Taking pollen from one field and taking it to another while they are growiing.<

Here, again, you demonstrate ignorance of agricultural issues. Trans-genetic cross-pollination is an issue involving GMOs and conventional crops. It has little to do with organic vs non-organic---which refers to growing methods, not what's being grown.

[chefhow]

Originally Posted by KYHeirloomer

>via the water they use, its from the same place <

Chefhow, if this is indeed true, then you are saying that the conventional farm has contaminated the water table with its use of synthetic chemicals. Your argument is therefore an admission that conventional farming poisons the environment.

I never said that the conventional farms arent putting chemicals into the water table but to call them poisonous when we have been eating them for decades and its still not killing ppl is a stretch.

Putting aside the public health issues that infers, it's also a good argument for using organic methods.

And how do you justify something being a poison when it's in the water, but being safe and beneficial when it coats your tomatoes?

>Its more expensive because the farmer feels that they need to be one with the earth and do it by hand, hence my reason in the begining. <

I suggest that you visit a couple of organic farms---both real ones, and the organic divisions of factory farms---and see how things are being done. It's obvious that you have no idea how things are grown in either case. I know all kinds of organic growers, all across the country. Every one of them owns tractors, and cultivators, and all the other necessary accountrements of market growing. If you're impressed with equipment you need to check out the self-propelled, multi-row vacumns used by the factory farms to "control" insect pests.

I have visited several commercial farms, I live in the middle of Central Pa farm country, my ex wife grew up on a working farm, I used to go as a kid to the farms and pick fresh produce in South Miami every weekend with my Aunt and Mother while my Uncle and Father were working out contracts for our family grocery stores, I know how its done. I was speaking tongue and cheek because the poster who said it said they weed t by hand and compared it to me being on my hands and knees weeding my flower beds. I may have been a weee bit on the sarcastic side...

It's bad enough that the average consumer has no idea where his food comes from or how it gets to the market. It's positively scary when a so-called professional is equally in the dark.

See above, but I will agree with you about the average consumer.

There are all sorts of reasons why produce grown on diverse organic farms is more expensive to produce, none of which include doing things as if we were back in the early 19th century.

My whole post was in reference to Dillberts post which interestingly enough has been deleted. Go figure....

[hippysandy]

It's not surprising that the pesticide company would be the one to criticize the First Lady's organic garden. After all, it is the one to be affected by the rise in popularity of organic products.

[OregonYeti]

You don't have to be a radical to love an organic garden. You only have to love good veges and fruits, and to prefer to grow them without unnecessary manufactured help.

Chemical fertilizers and pesticides etc are not totally evil, but I would rather be good at growing my produce without all that.

I'm glad the White House's organic gardening is getting some press But what's the big deal? It's not like they are communists because of it.

[KYHeirloomer]

>But what's the big deal?<

It's potentially a very big deal, Yeti. Not so much because of the organics, but because of the message it sends.

For 60 years we've been steadily moving towards controlled agriculture. Hybrids were the opening salvo (who controls the seed controls the feed, doncha see), and, so far, the culmination has been the agricultural imperialism of GMOs. To the point whereby Monsanto could actually realize its goal of dominating world agriculture.

No effort has been too large or too small for Monsanto to take a hand in self-protection. Did you know, for instance, that it is virtually illegal for an heirloom seed collector to import a packet of seed from other countries?

All of this has been with both the tacit and active support of virtually every government agency, ranging from USDA and the EPA, to Commerce and even Immigration.

Now comes the First Lady who tells the world the official White House garden is going to throw that support away. That organics, and open pollinated varieites, and sustainability are actually the way to go. That message is 180 degrees from the one that the government has been sending until now.

If the White House garden was, indeed, a major personal issue for Mrs. Obama, it would have grave repurcussions for the agri-chemical industry. And it's very aware of it. Which is why it reacted the way it did. And will always react that way over any perceived threat to its control of what we eat.

[KYHeirloomer]

Originally Posted by hippysandy

It's not surprising that the pesticide company would be the one to criticize the First Lady's organic garden. After all, it is the one to be affected by the rise in popularity of organic products.

Well, yes and no, hippysandy.

For most people, those who shop in supermarkets and the like, it's the same company.

Agriculture is the most integrated and concentrated industry in America. We don't say "Monsanto" merely as a symbol. Between Monsanto, its partners, and its wholy owned subsidiaries and divisions, it really does control much of the world agriculture.

This includes organic divisions of its factory farms. And the thing to understand is that unlike the small, diverse farmers we like to think are supplying those organics you see in the market, they actually come from those factory farms.

Among other differeces between them and the small, diverse famer: the organic divisions of the factory farms use the same non-sustainable methods as they've always used. The practice mono-culture rather than diversity. The flood the land with chemicals (albeit, ones acceptible to the law). They use specialized equipment that rather than helping sustain the land continues their tradition of pillaging it. And they grow the same vegetable varieties (almost always hybrids), and treat them the same, and put them through the same food distribution system as their more conventional crops. Thus, other than price (which is artificial), the organic tomato you see in the supermarket is precisely the same as the conventional one you see in the next bin.

If you pick a tomato when it isn't ripe, hold it in cold storage, then gas it just before delivery so it develops color, it doesn't matter how it was grown. It will still be tasteless and all but nutrient free.

It isn't so much organics that concerns the agri-giants. After all, they wrote the rules, so "organic" means whatever they want it to. It's the sustainability message that has them scared. Just imagine if that caught on with the consuming public. Oh my God! People will be demanding chemcial free vegetables (and, more and more, protein animals), raised locally, using sustainable methods. And that would have a serious effect on their bottom line.

[chefhow]

Well for all of you, and that includes me that thinks WalMart is the devil especially in the food industry wait till you read this. It was announced on Monday and put forth to all its suppliers who want to go under the label or "Organic". Site Login

And for the record I supply them with product thru other suppliers, they are very difficult to work with.

[MaryB]

The farmer who has land on 2 sides of my lot is organic. It doesn't mean he shuns the use of fertilizer or pesticides because there are organic versions that he can use. One is a bacteria that attacks certain pests and he also uses a liquid fertilizer that is fish based (it stinks trust me ). He wants to maximize his yield just like any other farmer.

[OregonYeti]

Originally Posted by KYHeirloomer

>But what's the big deal?<

It's potentially a very big deal, Yeti. Not so much because of the organics, but because of the message it sends.

For 60 years we've been steadily moving towards controlled agriculture. Hybrids were the opening salvo (who controls the seed controls the feed, doncha see), and, so far, the culmination has been the agricultural imperialism of GMOs. To the point whereby Monsanto could actually realize its goal of dominating world agriculture.

No effort has been too large or too small for Monsanto to take a hand in self-protection. Did you know, for instance, that it is virtually illegal for an heirloom seed collector to import a packet of seed from other countries?

All of this has been with both the tacit and active support of virtually every government agency, ranging from USDA and the EPA, to Commerce and even Immigration.

Now comes the First Lady who tells the world the official White House garden is going to throw that support away. That organics, and open pollinated varieites, and sustainability are actually the way to go. That message is 180 degrees from the one that the government has been sending until now.

If the White House garden was, indeed, a major personal issue for Mrs. Obama, it would have grave repurcussions for the agri-chemical industry. And it's very aware of it. Which is why it reacted the way it did. And will always react that way over any perceived threat to its control of what we eat.

That's very enlightening. Thanks, KY. I wonder if the Obamas realized it was a very political message. Whether they did realize or not, I'm glad they are doing it.

[KYHeirloomer]

>I wonder if the Obamas realized it was a very political message.<

I suspect not, Yeti. Or if they did, it wasn't the motivating factor. Rather, I believe, Mrs Obama was demonstrating that in tight economic climes, growing part of your own food was one way of stretching the food budget. Producing healthier food was, I'm sure, part of the message. But it wasn't the consuming point of it.

In short, the White House garden is just a symbol. I'm not knocking it. During times of crisis people need such symbols; indications that their leaders understand their problems and are working towards a solution.

[KYHeirloomer]

>It doesn't mean he shuns the use of fertilizer or pesticides.......<

The confusion here, Mary, is that most of us tend to use the word "chemical" as shorthand to mean "synthetic chemical." The fact is, of course, that without chemicals none of us, least of all vegetable plants, can survive. Furthermore, we tend to think that fertilizer, pesticide, fungicide, etc. are all words that are synonymous with the word chemical, which we've already misconstrued.

To put a point on it, plants require a group of 16 nutrients for healthy growth; nitrogen, phosphorus, and potasium are the big three, and the rest in trace amounts. So long as those nutrients are available in soluble forms that they can use, the plants don't care whether those "chemicals" come from compost or from a powder you buy at the garden center.

The real point of organic growing methods is that it's concerned with sustainability, and preservation of the land. Thus the difference between "organic chemicals" and "synthetic chemicals." The former doesn not have long-term negative effects on the soil or its micro-herd, and the latter does. Organic growing concerns itself with much more than what is or is not put in the ground and on the plants.

One example. I referred, above, to the giant, multi-row vacuum machines the factory farms use to control insects. Real gee-whiz technology that impressed the **** out of me the first time I saw one in operation.

Their idea of control is to suck up every critter on or near the plants. True organic growers, however, realize that there are beneficial insects as well as harmful ones, and that throwing the baby out with the bathwater does not show good stewardship of the land.

Similarly, a true organic grower, if he has to use Bt (that's the least destructive of the natural insecticides you referred to), does so selectively, rather than flooding the crop with it on some artificial shedule.

Unfortunately, we do that sort of thing a lot. For instance, any crossing of two plant varieties produces a biological hybrid. But when we say "hybrid" it's shorthand for the proprietary F1 varieties produced by seed companies. You can see the potential for confusion there.

[DC Sunshine]

I don't for one moment pretend to undestand the scope and true definition of the term "organic" farming.

My entry into this debate is that could Hydroponics be suitably produced and economically viable as a farming concern? If you had a sufficiently powerful enough water filtration system (using reverse osmosis), and organically acceptable nutrients, could a producer compete with others, without having the problems of water run-off from other non-organic farmers in the area? I am imagining it may even be necessary to set this up in a covered, sealed environment to stop cross-pollinaion from nearby growers. It would most probably take a large set up cost, so that could break the back of that donkey before it was born.

Just a thought.

[Epi]

I always notice the organic section at the supermarket but pass it because of the price. as for taste, sometimes I can't tell the difference between organic and non organic.

TGIF

[Dillbert]

hydroponic growing is a viable method - the Netherlands has acres and acres under glass.

costs are higher than using "the back forty" - but if you want a tomato in Holland in December, it's not coming out of the kitchen garden....

there is a lot chemistry to it - and since it usually is done "indoors" pest / disease issues can wipe out a entire greenhouse before you can blink.

I have no clue whether hydroponics can be done "organically" - everything I've ever read about commercial operations - especially pest control - does not qualify for organic.

as mentioned above, today's definition of "organic" is variable and being stretched in a lot of directions - commercial operations want the marketing advantage of labeling their stuff "organic" hence all the legal & definition flappola.

I've been kitchen gardening organically for decades. when our kids were young they would wander into the garden and start picking/eating stuff. that's what got me buying lady bugs to eat the aphids rather than malathion/<& misc. pesticides>

my personal take on "organic" fruits & vegetables is less about "what's on that broccoli?" but more about "what is not on that broccoli?"

for the home gardener, as KYHeirloomer mentioned, there's another aspect to organic - and that is creating / maintaining a good soil for the plants to grow in. lousy soil, even concrete, doesn't produce good crops regardless of how much fertilizer you pour on it.

[KYHeirloomer]

>sometimes I can't tell the difference between organic and non organic.<

Epi, if you can ever taste the difference there are factors at work other than the growing method.

Indeed, one of the mythis perpetrated by organic activists is that organic produce tastes better. It's both untrue, and counterproductive to their message. Once I can demonstrate that there is no taste difference it calls the entire organics thing into question. Many anti-organics people have used that vary argument.

As noted above, plants need 16 nutrients. So long as they have them available they will grow and produce to their full potential. Indeed, that's what hydroponics is all about.

If you can actually discern flavor differences I'd suggest any of the following:

1. The taste difference is in your head. You expect organic produce to taste better, so it does. The open question is, would you still tell the difference in a blind taste test?

2. Sourcing. If you purchase your produce at a farmer's market, it was harvested when ripe. If you buy it at the supermarket it wasn't. So the farmer's market tomato, say, will taste better---regardless of how it was grown. Vegetables produce their full flavor profile when ripe, and not before. That's why, for instance, red or yellow bell peppers taste so much better than green ones.
This difference, btw, is one of the many reasons for the locovore movement.

3. Variatal differences. Let's posit, for the sake of discussion, that the organically grown veggie was an heirloom variety, and the conventional one was the same old tired hybrid. There will, most of the time, be a dramatic flavor difference. But, again, it wasn't the growing method but the choice of variety.
Why the flavor differences? Has to do with the characterisitics looked for when developing a hybrid. Virtually all of them are choosen to meet the needs of the food distribution system. Flavor is never one of the characteristics selected for. So, any time a hybrid has flavor it's because it snuck in by accident.