[KYHeirloomer]

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

DC, our discussions re: the definition of organics doesn't apply to you. Here in the U.S., however, there is a federal law spelling out exactly what organics means. That law includes everything from a listing of what is or is not an organic chemical (i.e., it isn't enough that a pesticide, or fertilizer, etc. is a natural product. The product is either approved by the law, or you can't use it and call what you grow organic), to the condition of your soil, to a whole slew of other requirements.

The law also specifies that you have to use organic seed, unless you can demonstrate that it isn't available for that veggie. The onus of proof is on the grower. This is one of the dumbest legal requirements the world has ever seen, because the growing method has, from a horticultural viewpoint, absolutely no effect on the seed.

With one minor exception*, any market grower who wants to use the term organic must be certified as an organic grower, and is subject to continual inspections to assure complience. There's also an incredible amount of onerous paperwork involved. And, of course, application fees, and inspection fees, etc.

What this law did was all but drive out the legitimate organic growers, most of whom are relatively small, diverse farmers who cannot afford either the costs, or the time it takes to do the paperwork. Each vegetable you grow requires this paperwork. A friend of mine once figured out that the paperwork entailed maintaining her certification would take 26 hours each season---unless she added new veggies, in which case the time would increase.

If you had been around when the law was first proposed you'd have seen that the major inputs to the law came from the factory farmers---big surprise. And they made sure that it would favor them to the detriment of the true organic grower.

This, in turn, led to some awkward phraseology on the part of growers, who would identify their produce as being "grown using organic methods, but not certified," and similar terms. Consumers, who by and large do not understand the law, naturally looked on such phrases with suspicion. So organizations sprang up, such as CNG (Certified Naturally Grown) which gave members a logo that was more acceptible.

If you think this sounds like an incredibly politicalized situation, you don't know the half of it.

*The exception is if you earn less than $5,000 from all agricultural products annually, in which case you can claim to be an organic grower without earning certification.

[KYHeirloomer]

Just to clarify a bit, the federal organics law did spring up out of good intentions. The idea was to create a consistent, evenly applied certification system.

Until then, every state had it's own organic regs and definitions, ranging from virtually none (Kentucky), to some very fine systems such as those found in California and Oregon.

Indeed, if the feds had merely used either the California or Oregon Tilth certification systems as models, nobody would have been overly upset.

BTW, none of this has anything to do with home gardeners. For instance, I only use organic methods (and, fwiw, won't put a hybrid in the ground). But I'm not concerned about certification, so it doesn't matter what I call the veggies from my gardens.

[OregonYeti]

Wow, KYHeirloomer, you are a great source of information. I didn't know anything about most of what you said. Apparently it is a passion of yours to know what's what in horticulture. I'm getting a lot of great information from you, straight up, no kidding.

It's really screwed up that big money can buy that economic advantage, at the expense of the consumer. I hope that the Obamas are making a difference in this, whether they were trying to make a big point of it or not.

[bughut]

I dont think anyone's daft enough to believe that mrs Obamas family will be eating brocolli she has lovingly tended all through the summer. Going out on slug and snail patrol. Or laying awake nights worrying about how to keep the pigeons off her peas and strawberries.

But good on her for encouraging folk to be more aware.

You can argue the pros and cons of organic till the grass fed sourcable cows come home. But surely, If theres a way (And i'm talking small growers here. Including thee n me) to produce fruit, veg and blooms without pouring poison into the ground, shouldnt we at least give it a go.

On a grander scale. I dont have enough knowledge to diss the supermarket organic produce, but as always my cynicism gets the better of me, and like politicians, i dont trust any of them. No mater how much they try to sell us their magic solutions.

I do feel sorry for the small commercial producers who simply cannot afford to legally print "organic" on their packaging. Surely they should be encouraged.

We've become so de-sensitised to the plight of the third world growers. Some are maimed or even killed by the poisons they are forced to ingest while treating crops.
At home too, locals are suffering the effects of phosphates being sprayed on carrot feilds and so ad infinitum.

I swore years ago to always be organic. My husband persists in using weedkiller. I cant stop him.
My greenhouse that he has almost finished building will be completely organic. I've just been sent a list from the royal horticultural society, of organic predator suppliers and using them doesnt seem much more expensive than the chemical method.

As far as taste goes, I've had some absolute rubbish organic food. No-one ever gave any guarentees did they. On the whole though, its good stuff and the joy i get from my home grown is worth all the extra trouble it takes to look after the crops the "right" way.

[OregonYeti]

Originally Posted by bughut

I dont think anyone's daft enough to believe that mrs Obamas family will be eating brocolli she has lovingly tended all through the summer. Going out on slug and snail patrol. Or laying awake nights worrying about how to keep the pigeons off her peas and strawberries.

But good on her for encouraging folk to be more aware.

Maybe one motivation of the gardening was for their children to have a somewhat "normal" life as much as possible.

[bughut]

Originally Posted by OregonYeti

Maybe one motivation of the gardening was for their children to have a somewhat "normal" life as much as possible.

You think? Yes, I can see that.

Maybe she really loves gardening. I would miss it sooo much if i was too busy to really give it my time, and her spare time must be at a premium eh?

Its bad enough my next door neighbour scutinises my efforts without the world press. OOh! now that made me smile. Just imagine...

[KYHeirloomer]

Bughut, although the Royal Hort is an ok source, organics (and, indeed, vegetable growing overall) is just a small part of what they do.

You really should be involved with HDRA (Henry Doubleday Research Assn.) It's really the leading voice of organic growing in the British Isles.

In addition to its work with organic growing it also maintains the Heritage Seed Library, which makes otherwise unavailable seed (i.e., heirlooms and non-white-list open pollinated varieites) available to the gardening public.

Contact info on HDRA: Ryton Organic Gardens, Coventry CV8 3LG, Great Britain, 024 7630 8210, enquiry@hdra.org.uk.

[bughut]

I'll look into it. Thanks for the info.

I expect you use them a lot. Is it just heirloom tomatoes you grow, or other produce and is there a big marKet for it in America.

Cant say i've ever seen heirlooms for sale in any markets i've been to over here. Our loss i guess

[KYHeirloomer]

Everything I grow is an heirloom, Bughut. I won't put a hybrid in the ground, as much for political reasons as horticultural ones.

I try to specialize in growing Kentucky heirlooms whenever possible. If there are no Kentuckies available I broaden out to varities from other Appalachian states. There's no particular virtue in this. Trouble is, once the heirloom bug bites you start collecting like crazy. Pretty soon, unless you limit yourself somehow, you have so many seeds you'd have to bid on Rhode Island to have enough room to grow them.

Even as a regional specialist I have to alternate among the varieties. Plus there are "new" ones added every season. In a typical year, for instance, I'll grow two or three tomatoes, six legumes, etc.

Among the veggie types I grow regularly are tomatoes, beans (I'm known in the heirlooms community as a bean guy, and have more than a hundred varieites), chilis and sweet peppers, cowpeas (the oldest seed in my collection is a cowpea, in fact. Been in the same family since 1820) okra, cucumbers, summer and winter squashes, lettuces and other greens, brassicas of all types, all sorts of alliums, root veggies of several kinds, and I'm sure I'm leaving something out.

Doesn't surprise me that you don't see heirlooms for sale in Great Britain. Two reasons for that. First off, they're called "heritage varieties" over there. Second, and more important, is that if they're not on the white-list (and few are), then market growers cannot produce them, nor shops sell them.

Due to the white-list, it's even difficult for home gardeners to obtain heritage seed, because the commercial seed houses aren't allowed to sell them. So you have to obtain them from specially licensed groups, like HDRA, or by trading with other home growers.

If you want. let's talk privately about getting you some seed. I know many of my varieties will grow in England (I used to trade seed with some folks there), but don't know if they'll do well as far north as you are. So we'd have to focus on the kinds of things you can grow, length of your growing season, etc.

[KYHeirloomer]

>is there a big marKet for it in America.<

Potentially there's a huge market for them. Heirlooms have become mainstream over here, and everybody wants them. Especially chefs.

Until recently, however, it was hard to get the chefs and growers together. Heirlooms, by and large, do not travel well. But the locovore movement, along with several organizations that exist to set up grower/user partnerships, plus the exponential growth in farmers markets and CSAs has changed that.

One of the unfortunate problems, though, is that many of the people who tout heirlooms do not really know what they are. You see TV chefs, for instance, talking about "good heirloom tomatoes" as if "heirloom" was a specific variety. And most of them do not realize that there is more to the heirloom veggie thing than just tomatoes.

In addition, the mainstream seed houses all offer seed for at least some heirlooms. But, again, they don't always know what they're talking about. Many modern open pollinated varieties, for instance, are touted as heirlooms. And, marketing people being what they are, there are an awful lot of phony stories being promulgated about them.

If I here one more sappy, made-up story about the origination of Cherokee Purple tomatoes, for instance, I think I'll go in the corner and spit up.

The sad thing about that is that many heirlooms really do have great stories associated with them. And collecting the stories is as interesting, and as much fun, as collecting the seed itself.

[OregonYeti]

I am wondering if this is a rebuttal for the political message.

Organic food is no healthier, study finds - Yahoo! News

It addresses the comparative nutritional value of organically grown foods versus others, but not the possible negative of the other stuff you might be eating along with the produce. It's a popular article in Yahoo news.

From my point of view, the nutritive value as measured by vitamins and minerals and all was not the point. The point, to me, was first of all what stuff am I eating along with the produce than might be not so good, and second, is this a more reliable way of maintaining crops for many years . . .l

It looks to me like a strong PR message avoiding certain questions.

[chefhow]

I read the article a couple of days ago in one of online trade magazines and I was speaking with some of the scientists that I work with about it. A vegetable is what it is and its nutrtional value is what it is whether its organic or grown in a huge commerical farm. PPl need to see the truth for what it is, I personally support some of the small local farms in the central Pa area where I live and buy most of my produce and meats weekly at one of the farmers markets. I dont think they are organic but they certainly arent large scale farms. That is where ppl should be concerned, not with how its grown but how far it has to travel to get to you. I'm sure most of you know that more harm is done to the environment via the OTR freight that most of our food travels than the fertilizers that are used to grow them yet we continue to focus on the farmer and not the distance at which it travels. I think we need to open our eyes to the real problem and begin to support the local guy.

Until recently, however, it was hard to get the chefs and growers together. Heirlooms, by and large, do not travel well. But the locovore movement, along with several organizations that exist to set up grower/user partnerships, plus the exponential growth in farmers markets and CSAs has changed that.

KY, I have a ton of respect for you and the wealth of knowlege that you bring to the table, but with the exception of the big box chains many of us little independent owners have been supporting and working with the small local farmers for years, at least in the circles I have been in over the past 15 years. The owner/farmer coops have been around in the SE, in particular TN, GA and FL since I opened my first place in 1995. I bought ALL my meats and produce every few days according to what was on the truck and made menu changes accordingly.

[KYHeirloomer]

>I am wondering if this is a rebuttal for the political message.<

Certainly it's part of the anti-organics message. And it's precisely the point I made earlier; that so long as organics activists make false claims that are easy to refute it just provides ammo to the opposite camp.

Keep in mind that the activists aren't lying, per se. They really believe some of the things they spout about flavor and nutritional benefits. Which, in turn, leads others to believe it.

But, as I've said before, if you provide the nutrients that a plant needs for healthy growth, the fruit will be the same---same taste, same nutritional value, same everything---whether you grow conventionally or organically.

Organic growing has to do with long-term concern for the land, and for not adding poisons and adulterants to the food supply.

[KYHeirloomer]

>A vegetable is what it is and its nutrtional value is what it is whether its organic or grown in a huge commerical farm.<

Isn't that what I said? Several times?

>not with how its grown but how far it has to travel to get to you.<

The two tend to be interrelated. So long as varieties are choosen to meet the needs of the food distribution system other things---like flavor and nutritional value---can suffer. The closer one is to the food supply, the more the farmer can concentrate on growing the best vegetable possible.

The classic example: You buy tomatoes at a farmers market where a member grows the same hybrid you buy at the supermarket. But the one from the farmer's market tastes so much better. Why? Because the local farmer waited until it was ripe before he picked it to sell to you. The supermarket 'maters were never ripe nor ever will be.

>many of us little independent owners have been supporting and working with the small local farmers for years,<

Certainly you have, and I laud your efforts (although you, as a chef, probably never heard of heirlooms 15 years ago, let alone bought them). And there are even stronger efforts. Among others: The Blackberry Inn is one of several resorts with it's own working farm on the property to provide produce for its kitchens. MiLa, down in New Orleans, has a contract with a farm for exclusive rights to its entire production. Mario Batalli gets his eggs directly from a grower who raises free-range chickens. I could provide numerous other examples.

But that doesn't detract from what I said. The fact is, it is difficult, even today, for the average chef to connect with a local grower. Surely it's easier than it was ten years ago, and exponentially easier than it was 30 years ago when Alice Waters turned a sensible approach into a movement. And the number of channels that facilitate grower/user relationships is also growing. So it gets easier every day.

>owner/farmer coops have been around in the SE,<

One thing we should beware of is attributing certain characteristics to groups that exist for other reasons. Agricultural co-ops are marketing organizations that allow a group of smaller farmers the economy of scale enjoyed by factory farmers. They do not, necessarily, reflect a local-sales bias. For the most part, just the opposite is true; co-ops form so that the farming community can broaden its marketing reach, either regionally or locally.

Examples: Until the foreign invasion changed it, all the garlic you bought came from Gilroy, a co-op. Virtually all the white rice sold in America comes from a handful of huge co-ops. Citrus products are marketed through a number of co-ops. So, too, are avocadoes (and, indeed, almost everything grown in California's central valley) and most nut products.

Chances are, if there's a X Council or Assn, there is at least one co-op involved marketing that agricultural product on a national or international level. "Beef--It's What's For Dinner" did not originate with a local farmer raising half a dozen grass-fed steers.

The downside is that once a co-op is successful it has to follow many of the same food-distribution-system constraints as the factory farms. Which puts the chef back where he was; scrambling around for locally grown produce.

[Epi]

Wow! Thank you very much for your knowledgeable response.

Originally Posted by 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.