organic vs chemweed

[minds_I]

Hello all,

Gee, I want to stir the shit too...

Clearly, there will be no agreement on this topic.....

So let it the phvqve go.

Suby, I am with you- I prefer organics to synthetics as well in a soil environment.

But you are both forgetting that a hydro environment in inherently different and so would be the feeding mechanism associated.

Suby, you would never dream of mixing a 3 part fert to the precise PPM and EC and pH and dosing your girls in that lovely soil you have them in would you?

Unicorn, you would never dream of pouring a ewc/bat shit/dry molasses/kelp tea thats been bubbling for a few days and smell like...well shit strait into your res without straining and pH'ing and diluting?

So, you both are pissing up a tree as neither of you are using the same frame of reference.

Both ferts added to the opposite system will have grave effects.

minds_I

PS: I predict this won't stop.

 

[Guest]

my opinion will not change on this matter..here is more science for you friend

http://www.hydromall.com/grower/general_hydroponics/debate_on_organics_and_hydroponics.html
In hydroponics we provide the minerals required for plant growth directly, completely eliminating the need for soil and soil-organisms. The result is much higher growth rates, yields and even crop quality than organic methods can achieve. This is not what some people want to hear, but it is the simple scientific truth - and practically all scientists and educators in the fields of agriculture and chemistry know it and will be the first to agree. In fact, the kinds of materials which are permitted for use under "organic" regulations are not of sufficient purity to be used for hydroponic culture.

really?
List them quickly because where I stand you've been squawking the same shit since the beginning under the guise of having science on your side.
I was really hoping you would tear me a new one because at this point i'm begging to be proven wrong.
I hope you aren't thinking you've sumed it all up with: an ion is an ion and that's a fact...

if you want more i will find it for ya

 

[Guest]

http://www.simplyhydro.com/f_a_q.htm#MYTH: HYDROPONICS IS BAD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT
MYTH: HYDROPONICS IS BAD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT
This is totally false. growing plants hydroponically is far more "earth friendly" than conventional gardening could ever be. Hydroponic's usage of water is 70 to90 percent LESS then that used in conventional dirt gardening, and no fertilizer is lost to rain run off. These two items alone, water conservation and the non-pollution of lakes and streams, are major plus values.

 

[Guest]

Over the last decade, Thailand has been struck full force by a chemical revolution, with a massive influx of herbicides, fungicides and pesticides entering the country in a highly concentrated form known as ‘active ingredient’. The country is now one of the foremost employers of chemical farming methods in South East Asia, with 39,000 tonnes of active ingredient entering the country in 2002. Health problems associated with the use of these substances are rife, ranging from milder symptoms such as a dry throat, itchy skin, headache, red eyes and running nose, to more severe symptoms that include vomiting and diarrhoea, convulsions, loss of consciousness and, in some cases, death.

In a study carried out in Nakhon Sawan last year, 3,245 rice farmers were tested by the assembly and local health officials, revealing that 84% of them had toxic substances in their blood from the use of chemicals in paddy fields. Frequently, the effects of chemical toxins are long-term, and by the time they manifest themselves, the damage is beyond correction. The Buatong group is a women’s organisation that develops and teaches natural alternatives to chemical products. Group leader, ‘Auntie’ Prapai, says, “Many farmers don’t protect themselves against chemicals because they don’t experience any negative health effects at the beginning. They don’t realise that the problems come later.”

Pai District’s Head of Agriculture, Sanan Yawichai, recognises the pitfalls of chemical farming methods: “Pesticides and other chemical substances can do a great deal of harm to agricultural ecosystems – they disrupt the balance of nature. Farmers who use chemicals must use more and keep changing to different types, because pests build up resistance so quickly. Many farmers use chemicals without knowing about the dangers, or paying attention to safety precautions. There are so many ways in which the toxins can enter the body – through the skin, the eyes, the nose. Some farmers never check the levels of poison in their bodies, and accumulation over time can lead to severe health problems, or even sudden death.”


Thats just one.

Your like the cops Unicorn, you think you are in the right, and as the years go by you will slowly realize that you are on the wrong team.

 

[Guest]

By the way........where do you dump your water when you change it?
In the drain? Toilet?

New York Times Article
Discusses Rise in Child Cancers
SOURCE: NEW YORK TIMES, September 29, 1997

The September 29, 1997 New York Times article entitled "New Toxins Suspected as Cancer Rate Rises in Children" discussed the rises being seen in child cancers over the past 20 years. Specific quotes from the article include the following:

The rate of cancer among American children has been rising for decades. Although the reasons remain unclear, many experts suspect the increase may be partly the result of growing exposure to new chemicals in the environment.


And today, according to experts in the field, a newborn child faces a risk of about 1 in 600 of contracting cancer by age 10.

Depending on which types of cancer are counted, and in what age groups among the nation's youth, the rate of increase has amounted to nearly 1 percent a year, according to the National Cancer Institute. Over a few decades, that has meant striking double-digit increases.

"I had not realized that the numbers were going up that way," said Karen Florini, a lawyer specializing in health issues at the Environmental Defense Fund. "I think it indicates a very disturbing trend that we had better get to the bottom of."

In the United States, cancer is diagnosed each year in an estimated 8,000 children below the age of 15. Cancer, although it kills fewer children than accidents do, is the most common form of fatal childhood disease, accounting for about 10 percent of all deaths in childhood.

Acute lymphoblastic leukemia in boys and girls increased 27 percent between 1973 and 1990; since then, the rate in boys has declined, but it is still rising in girls. Brain cancer, or glioma, increased nearly 40 percent from 1973 to 1994. These two forms of cancer account for most of the disease in children.

Although the causes are not known and are probably many, some experts say, toxins in the air, food, dust, soil and drinking water are prime suspects.

"I'm talking about new research on air pollutants, water pollutants and pesticides and their effects on children," said Carol Browner, the administrator of the EPA, "and new testing guidelines that routinely incorporate children's issues into EPA's risk assessments. I'm talking about moving beyond the chemical-by-chemical approaches of the past, and instead looking at a child's total cumulative risk from all exposures to toxic chemicals."

"The increases are too rapid to reflect genetic changes, and better diagnostic detection is not a likely explanation," said Dr. Philip Landrigan, a pediatrician who directs the division of environmental medicine at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York City and who is the senior adviser to a new office of children's health at the EPA "The strong probability exists that environmental factors are playing a role."

In a study published in The American Journal of Public Health in February 1995, researchers suggested that "use of home pesticides may be associated with some types of childhood cancer."

Another study, published in The Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology in 1993, found associations between brain cancer in Missouri children and the use of pesticides in homes and yards.

Article by John H. Cushman, Jr.
New York Times
September 29, 1997

 

[Guest]

Cancer Cause and Cure:
A 20th Century Perspective
By Percy Weston
Review by Abby Eagle

Percy Weston, an Australian farmer, chronicles his experience with high-phosphate fertilizers and its effects on the health of humans, farm animals and crops. He shows how chemical farming leads to degenerative disease, and how by eating organic foods with the correct mineral balance it can be reversed. His story is fascinating, especially since he was born in 1903 and is still alive and kicking in 2004.

As a small boy, Weston (we like his last name!) suffered partial paralysis after inhaling the fumes from a phosphorous-impregnated match and later he experienced headache and nausea after inhaling the phosphorous fumes from rabbit bait. He also noticed that the rabbits became paralyzed before dying. Smoking Virginia leaf tobacco, grown with superphosphate to produce high yields, made him feel weak and giddy for hours whereas smoking standard brown leaf tobacco, which is grown without superphosphate, gave no ill effects.

Weston observed a student in a science class accidentally inhale phosphorous gas and within seconds collapse on the floor. In another school science incident a student carried a piece of flaming phosphorous around the class room. Within minutes most students were struggling on the floor and 17 were admitted to hospital. Workers in factories that made wax matches died from a disease known as phossey jaw which was linked to exposure to white phosphorous.

Superphosphate is a chemical fertilizer produced by the action of sulphuric acid on phosphate rock, making the phosphorous more soluble for faster release. As a farmer, Weston began to attribute many problems to the use of superphosphate.During a mouse plague on the wheat fields in 1932, Weston discovered many had cancer lesions on the ears, nose, tail and feet. A decade later he saw the same types of cancers in a plague of rats.

By 1930 the soils in Victoria, Australia were saturated with phosphorus and newspapers carried their first reports that cigarettes were to blame for lung cancer. Other adverse effects of the heavy application of superphosphate was a marked increase in insect activity; tobacco became stunted and suffered from mosaic virus and bunchy top, two diseases where the cell multiplication of the plant goes haywire (as in cancer); and gorgon-headed tomatoes and potatoes also began appearing.
In mid-1937, he observed a neighbor applying a 4 gallon tin of super to the family vegetable garden. A year later both boys in the family suffered polio (infantile paralysis) and one died. Weston notes that this was just one case amongst many in his farming community. Sheep and cows on pasture fertilized with superphosphate also suffered from cancer and disease. He observed that some sheep would rather starve than eat pasture fertilized with high levels of superphospate, and those that did eat it either became ill or died.

Weston believes that a contributing factor to sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) may be a diet high in phosphorous. Either the mother’s breast milk could be high in phosphorous, if the mother eats phosphorous-rich foods, or if bottle fed, the baby could get too much phosphorous from cow’s milk that has superphospate in the food chain.

One theme runs throughout the book: the theory that high levels of phosphorous may cause paralysis in one form or another--a paralysis of the immature breathing system of the baby as in SIDS, infantile paralysis (polio) in children, and a paralysis of the breathing system in children and adults as in asthma. Weston notes that cows die from bloat when they are unable to burp out the gas, once again a paralysis of the breathing system.

New rains, on soils recently fertilised with superphosphate, cause a flood of phosphates to be taken up by the plants and into the milk and food supply, which can then contribute to an outbreak of disease. Weston claims that phosphorous can stimulate germ activity and that this is a contributing factor in the outbreaks of mastitis, three-day fever and milk fever in dairy herds.

Weston condemns pasteurization along with the use of superphosphate. He and his family all thrived on fresh raw milk from pasture-fed cows for 60 years, often with no refrigeration. In over 30 years of feeding raw cows milk to orphaned lambs on his farm, there were few to no fatalities. However, when he was unable to procure raw milk, 29 out of a group of 30 lambs died when fed commercial pasteurised milk. Weston shows that there is a similarity between lamb deaths and the death of babies (SIDS) in the era of pasteurised milk and the use of superphospate.

Weston points out that the correct phosphorous and calcium balance in the soil is essential for the correct proportions to be in the food that we and the farm animals eat. (It is interesting to note that a high phosphorous-to-calcium ratio has been cited as one reason why the calcium in non-organic milk is not available to the body.)

Weston was able to heal his own cancer on two occasions by avoiding foods that had superphosphate and organophosphate pesticides in the food chain, and by supplementing with a formula of mineral salts that included sodium bicarbonate, magnesium sulphate, potassium sulphate, iron sulphate and potassium iodide.

The book contains a comprehensive appendix of tables and graphs that presents a convincing correlation between the use of phosphates with cancers in cattle and humans over the last century. It is a must read for anyone who has cancer, and for anyone who has any doubts about the reason for eating organic food.

 

[Suby]

Keep chasing your own tail, I don't need to Google to know your wrong, again dated links with ho hum info...yawn.
Do you haver dinner regularly with an owner of a huge cvommercial greenhouse and an organic chemist?
I do and they disagree with what you posted.

MI is infinitely wiser than me in understanding that there is no sense in arguing with a sheep of the hydro industry.

 

[Guest]

Historically pesticides had their roots in the Holocaust during WW2 when German firms developed chemicals to attack the human nervous system. Hoechst and Bayer and BASF developed these for the Nazis to use in death camps to cause mass death in a short time to an enclosed space. After the war these compounds were found as effective pesticides, windfall of the victory of the Allies in Germany.



So pesticides as biocides should not come as a surprise of its unintended consequence since its intent was known from the beginning as a toxin to the central nervous systems of animals as different at vertebrates are from insects. Their dangers were known from the beginning. Agriculture benefited from non-agrarian research, chemical engineering to eliminate pests, which were given impetus by the possible successful control of tropical epidemic diseases with insect reservoirs or vectors.



After Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring changed the environmental movement in the 1950s from one concerned with wilderness and set asides to one concerned with toxics and human health. DDT was in fact a pesticide. Elected officials have been slow to welcome this change preferring an environmental politics that protects wilderness and makes good campaign imagery to one that challenges industry and seeks further regulation of the farm sector. Even with DDT bans, production continued. The LA River was the effluent for DDT production from LA’s oil refinery belt. Today the only submarine Superfund site in the US identified by EPA is the DDT deposit that built up long after the ban. Regulation requires that the firms that created this DDT dump pay as per polluter pay principle. Recent executive order changed this policy to the taxpayers. Superfund will now be entirely supported by taxpayer funds.



The most dangerous pesticides to follow DDT have been the organo-chlorides and organo-phosphates. The worst are the family called the “dirty dozen” they have a long half-life and bio-accumulate in the food chain. All people carry traces of pesticides in the fat tissue because we live in California. The risks of these are debated of course, because it is hard to isolate the culprit.



Greenpeace funded a study in 1993 to see if the organo-chlorides had a link to breast cancer. The study was dismissed by the scientific community for being too biased and un-scientific. That is, the GP study had picked the compounds a priori and developed the hypothesis on these compounds. However when one looks at the disproportionate share of breast cancer research the targets genetic explanations, the lack of research in environmental causes is alarming. The incidence of breast cancer diagnosis or pre-malignant tissues has changed over the last twenty years from 1:5 women to 1:3 for the USA. This cannot have a genetic explanation. Epidemiology here suggests an increased outside influence for women growing up in a certain era.

 

[Guest]

i dont use pesticides i grow indoors...hydro organics is a joke and not even organic most of the time..to understand organics...is to understand hydro organics is foolish....

 

[Guest]

Organic farming is the technology of growing vegetables without using synthetic chemical fertilizers and pesticides. The success of organic farming in the United States has happened because many people started to buy expensive "organic" vegetables, reasoning that it is good for their health and the environment. Over the years, organic farming became more then just a technology - government started to give organic farmers certifications and new non-profit organizations like Ecology Action started to promote organic farming with armies of followers all around he globe. But the basic question remains - is the organic farming movement based on sound science? It appears that organic farming is mostly based on people's misunderstanding of plant physiology, past failures of mainstream agriculture and the desire of organic farmers to maintain their high profit margins.

First, it is important to discuss the roots of people's desire to eat organic vegetables - the belief that when plants are fed with organic fertilizers, they become "natural", better for health, more tasty - and their biochemistry is different from plants grown on chemical fertilizers. The truth is that plants, unlike animals, are autotrophic organisms, i.e. organisms that synthesize their food from simple non-organic chemicals. Animals, including humans, eat proteins, fats, carbohydrates and vitamins. Plants cannot eat proteins. They "eat" nitrates, phosphates, potassium, calcium and a dozen of other kinds of non-organic ions. Before plants can get nutrients from organic fertilizers, soil bacteria must decompose organic fertilizers into simple non-organic chemicals, convert proteins first into ammonia, then into nitrites, and finally into nitrates that can be consumed by plants. The resulting nitrates are undistinguishable from nitrates from chemical fertilizers on any physical, chemical or biological level. Because of this, vegetables grown on properly used chemical fertilizers are no less "natural" than vegetables grown on organic fertilizers.

Proponents of organic farming sometimes state that plants need to get nutrients from organic matter. This is not true. During the middle of the 20th century many people grown vegetables with a technology called "hydroponics", when plants grew in artificial media and fed from a mix of salts. Hydroponics is not popular today because of its high costs of maintaining necessary equipment, but it produces great tasty vegetables and disproves the idea that plants need organic substances to grow.

People buying organic food claim that organic food is tastier. According to Richard Gallagher, editor of The Scientist magazine, this is not true: "Blind tests show no difference in taste between organic and inorganic food" (The Organic Food Placebo - http://www.cgfi.org/materials/articles/2004/oct_11_04_gallagher.htm). It is true that food from different supermarkets may taste differently. But this difference can be explained by different storage conditions and especially by using plant hormone gas ethylene for artificial ripening of green vegetables after the transportation - a practice that has nothing to do with organic vs. chemic fertilizer controversy because ethylene is not a fertilizer.

Another misunderstanding of the general public is the belief that organic farming benefits the environment. According to Dennis Avery, a researcher from a non-profit organization Center for Global Food Issues, this is not true. Avery argues that organic farming is associated with lower yields per acre compared with the mainstream agriculture. According to CGFI main statement, "Growing More Per Acre Leaves More Land for Nature", so from this prospective it is the mainstream agriculture that benefits the environment.

From another side, organic farming proponents claim that the mainstream agriculture does not benefit the environment because chemical fertilizers pollute the environment. This is also not true. Chemical fertilizers like ammonium sulfate are completely consumed by plants and can pollute the environment only if they are applied in large amounts too fast, in which case they can cause algae bloom in nearby rivers and suffocate fish living there. But exactly the same would happen with improper use of organic fertilizers - blood meal or manure. What is worse, in addition to algae bloom, manure can contain polluting pathogens (according to an article by Alex Avery "Organic Food Non Safety?") and can increase soil salinity. Apparently, the scientifically correct use of chemical fertilizers (completely consumed ammonium sulfate) may pollute the environment less than the use of organic fertilizers (manure that increases soil salinity and has pathogens).

Organic farmers also make various claims that organic farming preserves soils. This statement is not true simply because a true natural soil has a complicated horizon structure, that can be destroyed by "double digging" and adding a lot of compost - a technique practiced by followers of Ecology Action. According to an article by Dennis Avery "Organic Farming Loses 'Healthier Soils' Claim to High-tech Farming", organic farmers plow frequently to control weeds, while mainstream farmers control weeds using herbicides. Organic farming techniques, according to Avery, are damaging to a soil's health because frequent plowing destroys beneficial mychorrizal fungi - recently discovered symbiotic organisms that help plants in getting mineral nutrients from the soil. At a minimum, organic farmers' claims about improving soil health do not look solid and require additional research.

Another area of the general public's confusion about organic fertilizers is the definition of the word "organic" itself. For example, fish emulsion is a popular organic fertilizer. However, according to the article "How A Fish Becomes Fertilizer", by Bill Glinn, a representative of Alaska Fish Fertilizer Company, manufacturing of fish emulsion requires a complicated technological process, involving artificial chemicals like phosphoric acid, synthetic urea, enzymes and smell masking agents. So "organic" fish emulsion is not so organic after all.

How did the distrust of chemical fertilizers originate? Probably the main factor was incorrect use of chemical fertilizers in the past, including applying excessive amounts of fast-acting nitrogen fertilizers, resulting in plant burn and excessive nitrates in plant tissues. It is more difficult to misuse organic nitrogen fertilizers because they contain less nitrogen and release it more slowly. However, proper application (smaller amounts many times instead of one time a lot) eliminates this chemical fertilizer problem. Even better are modern slow-releasing fertilizers like urea formaldehyde or like OsmocoteT that release nutrients slower and are superior to organic fertilizers in cost.

Another, although minor, factor in the formation of the distrust of chemical fertilizers is he highly questionable practice of manufacturing micronutrient fertilizers from the toxic wastes of the steel industry, described in the article "Waste Lands. The threat of Toxic Fertilizer", written by Matthew Shaffer, a researcher from the non-profit organization California Public Interest Research Group Charitable Trust. Matthew Shaffer is against recycling toxic wastes into chemical fertilizers because it causes environment pollution with heavy metals like lead or cadmium, which can cause cancers and birth defects. However Shaffer is not against manufacturing chemical fertilizers in a normal way, without recycling toxic wastes. Interestingly, Shaffer is also not impressed with some "natural" fertilizers like rock phosphate that may have "causing concern" levels of cadmium and even uranium. This problem is relatively minor for the discussion because recycling toxic wastes is used only in manufacturing of micronutrients fertilizers (zinc, molybdenum and similar) that are used infrequently and have the production volume orders of magnitude less than macronutrient fertilizers (with nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium).
It is important to say that organic fertilizers do have some merit. First of all, organic fertilizers like cottonseed meal add organic matter to a soil, improving the soil structure and nutrient-holding capacity. This means that particles of organic matter can keep chemical nutrients like potassium ions or nitrate ions, in the vicinity of plant roots, without leaching them down the soil. But the same results can be achieved by applying a mix of compost and chemical fertilizers.

Another benefit is that organic fertilizers are slow-releasing, providing optimal slow nurturing of plants without potential for underground water pollution. However, there are also slow-released sulfur-coated chemical fertilizers, like OsmocoteT. At the same time, Osmocote has a disadvantage in the higher cost compared with most of other chemical fertilizers, so the question whether to use Osmocote or organic fertilizers does not have an obvious answer.

Important benefit is that some organic fertilizers add micronutrients to a soil, like zinc, molybdenum, iron and others. But most soils already contain all the necessary micronutrients. Also in a case of an acute micronutrient deficiency synthetic micronutrient fertilizers solve the problem better because of precise concentration, while concentrations of micronutrients in organic fertilizers are small and highly variable, so it is not possible to tell precisely whether a given organic fertilizer will solve a given deficiency or not. For example Scotts-Sierra Horticultural Product Company gives precise amounts of micronutrients on its fertilizer labels (see http://www.scottsprohort.com/_documents/tech_sheets/H5101_Osmocote_Pro.pdf), while organic fertilizer manufacturers, like Whitney Farms, give only amounts of macronutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium - see http://www.whitneyfarms.com/products/specialtyfertilizers.shtml).

Probably the most important benefit of organic fertilizers is that they feed soil microorganisms and worms that improve soil quality. Because of this effect mainstream agriculture uses some organic techniques like putting compost in the soil, as recommended by the US Composting Council's booklet "Benefits of Using Compost". Technically speaking, compost is not an organic fertilizer, but more like a soil amendment, but in this respect it acts similarly. One example of the organic fertilizer efficiency is the use of alfalfa meal by rose growers - a technique that greatly increases the population of beneficial worms in a soil and improves soil health. However, alfalfa meal is a very costly fertilizer for its benefits and cannot be used for the majority of situations.

Organic farming proponents usually ignore the disadvantages of organic fertilizers. Organic fertilizers may introduce unwanted chemicals, like rock phosphate may introduce heavy metals. Many organic fertilizers increase soil salinity, notably manures, kelp and other fertilizers. An organic fertilization program cannot help a soil with seriously bad alkalinity - sulfur or iron sulfate application may be needed, as shown in an article by university researchers Alice Jones, Bob Sorensen and Betsy Dierberger "Soil and Water Resources". Organic fertilizers may not be able to solve acute plant nutrient problems, like chlorosis. Organic fertilizers cost 10 and more times more than chemical fertilizers with similar nutrient contents. Organic fertilizers have higher risk of pathogen contamination. It is clear that for most agricultural situations organic fertilizers do not have significant advantages compared to chemical fertilizers, but have many disadvantages, especially cost and imprecise formulations.
Really puzzling is the role of the US government in the organic farming controversy. For instance, a manual describing organic farmer certification requirements ("Manual Two: USDA Requirements for Organic Producers" by California Certified Organic Farmers (CCOF)) contains a list of allowed and disallowed chemicals for organic farmers. This list strikes as arbitrary and sometimes illogical. For example, it does not allow using synthetic herbicides, but allows use of flame to kill weeds. Weed burners represent a significant fire hazard, not speaking about the use of chemicals for their fuel. Even worse, organic guidelines allow use of plastic mulches, provided they are "removed from the field at the end of the growing or harvest season". It is illogical because prohibited by the document synthetic herbicides like "2,4-D" decomposes without leaving residue shortly after it hits the ground, but pieces of allowed plastic mulch will persist in the soil for millennia.

Another example is that these guidelines disallow use of ammonium sulfate - a chemical fertilizer that is completely consumed by a plant to build its body and cannot kill anybody with normal use. However, these guidelines do allow use of copper sulfate - a substance that accumulates in a soil, kills fish and animals.

Yet another example is that these organic guidelines allow use of sulfur dioxide to kill underground rodents. But sulfur dioxide is generally considered a toxic industrial air pollutant. It causes "acid rains". Does it mean that "green" "organic" people think that the use of sulfur dioxide by an organic farmer magically makes it not toxic? And finally, these organic guidelines do not allow use of antibiotics for animals but do allow use of streptomycin antibiotic for fire blight control in apples and pears.

In order to understand what the organic farming movement is, it is important to look to non-profit and commercial organizations, promoting the technology. One of the best-known organic promoters is Ecology Action, a California environmental research and education organization. Their vision is described in a book "How to Grow More Vegetables" by John Jeavons. This book is distributed during Ecology Action's classes in Palo Alto's Common Grounds store as a way to convert the followers.

The book starts with the claims that the proposed agricultural technology can save the environment, save soils from erosion and solve the problem of the world's hunger, while being less labor intensive and less expensive than the mainstream technology. Ideas presented in the book include extensive use of composting, companion planting, hexagonal planting etc. In addition to the purely agricultural topics the book includes certain environmental philosophy associated with Ecology Action organization. 53 out 240 pages of this book are bibliography. It contains references not just to agricultural sources, but also to the books about philosophy, dieting, crafts, economics, housing, recycling and Native Americans. Unfortunately, the book contains not very many agricultural technologies, and much of the technology it contains is based on questionable or nonexistent research. At the same time the book contains a lot of claims, like claim that their technology will grow a complete amount of food necessary for a small family on 4000 square feet. In addition to such claims it contains some apocalyptic ideas what will happen to humanity if humanity will not adopt Ecology Action's technology. Such dreadful events include loss of soils, water resources and starvation.

Some of Ecology Action's "biointensive" technologies are supported by the agricultural science. For example heavy use of composting allows to increase soil's "Cation Exchange Capacity" (CEC) - an ability of soil particles to keep mineral nutrition available to the roots of the plants. However many of "biointensive" techniques are presented without support.

For example the book has an extensive list of "companion" plants - plants, "helping" each other to grow (like carrots and peas, or pumpkin and corn). However the book does not refer to scientifically correct experiments that can prove the increase of agricultural output with such planting. At some moment the book promotes planting plants by the phases of the moon, an idea that was never proven and does not have even anecdotal evidence.

The book does not show the hidden costs of Ecology Action's technology. For example it is very labor-intensive comparing with the mainstream technologies. The book promotes use of organic fertilizers like alfalfa meal, but does not mention that fertilizing in this way is at least 10 times more expensive than with chemically synthesized fertilizers. The book promotes home composting, but does not mention that centralized municipal composting of yard waste usually produces weed-free, nitrogen-balanced and much cheaper compost.

This book and related articles produced by Ecology Action refer to worldwide adoption of their technology in places like India and Russia, using techniques similar to network marketing organizations like Mary Kay and Amway. The problem is that people in India and Russia think that everything from America is inherently superior to their practices and don't question them much.
Overall, organic farming organizations, supplies and followers resemble some religious cult groups. Generally speaking, religions started when people were confused about things they did not understand (like what is lightening) and were trying to make sense of some events (sinful person was hit by a lightening) and intuitive assumptions (some powerful paternalistic figure in the sky should be in charge). Then religious leaders appear and promote their theories and agendas (if you will tell everyone sin leads to lightening, you will be praised by the leaders of the lightening cult).

In a similar fashion, organic movement started when people were confused about plant physiology (plants counter-intuitively feed on inorganic chemicals) and saw some past failures of the mainstream technology (incorrect application of chemical fertilizers). This gave raise to many groups who started promoting a new organic farming religion and inspired a new generation of garden suppliers oriented exclusively to organic gardening market and commanding higher prices on everything "organic". This movement is to a high degree based on people's irrationality, but it will probably go to the past only after the mainstream technology will resolve many other, non-fertilizer-related agricultural issues, including pesticide toxicity, prevention of soil erosion, the problem of storing fresh ripened vegetables without using ethylene and many others.

 

[Smurf]

Dennis Avery is a classic example of PR spinning that seizes upon an element of truth and then distorts it in ways to serve a larger purpose, he argues to weaken standards that protect public health from pesticide exposures.

Dennis Avery works for the oil-backed and financed Hudson Institute. He is a Right-wing chemical industry supporter.

Some background..... note that Avery has been a relentless, indeed rabid advocate for the pesticide industry. A good example of Avery's work was described in the New York Times on 17 February 1999 in an article by Marian Burros titled: "Eating Well. Anti-organic and flawed." (available on the web at: www.purefood.org/Organic/denavery.cfm and several other organic food sites). In essence, Avery fabricated a quote designed to make organic food appear more dangerous than conventional food and attributed the quote to an expert from the US Centers for Disease Control. Despite repeated denials by the CDC, Avery persisted (and still persists) in using this as evidence for his arguments. (also see www.winrock.org/wallacecenter/press001a.htm for a related request by the Wallace Institute that Avery withdraw demonstrably false claims. And there is plenty more.

As is often the case, the half-truths told by people like Avery (and yourself included) can be reduced to simple sound-bites, while the truth is much more complicated.

 

[Smurf]

Just a quick excerpt from the link in my last post above:

Avery wrote that because "organic farmers use animal manure as the major source of fertilizer," there are higher levels of harmful bacteria in organic food.

Katherine DiMatteo, the executive director of the Organic Trade Association, said that manure is not the major source of fertilizer on organic farms (it is also used in conventional farming) and that, when it is used, certain rules must be followed for safety.

Avery said he had never "bothered that much about consumer safety aspects of organic food until O157:H7." His real goal, he said, is to prevent organic agriculture from becoming the norm. "My big concern is that we do not have room on the planet to feed ourselves organically," he said.

The attack on organic food by a well-financed research organization suggests that, even though organic food accounts for only 1 percent of food sales in the country (USA), the conventional food industry is worried.

Dennis Avery, author of "Saving the Planet With Pesticides and Plastic" (Hudson Institute, 1995) ........... I wonder who financed it?

 

[minds_I]

Keep chasing your own tail, .....

my opinion will not change on this matter.

Let it the phvqve go.

What more could you possible have to say ont he matter that is going to convince either one?

To continue this hyperbole is just playtime and nothing of substance for the cause.

minds_I

 

[jaykush]

this is still going on?

 

[kush07]

This argument is rather mute seeing as both sides will find valide points to prove that their POV is "better". We all have to remember that organics came first though. Pilgrims put fish around there corn seeds to fertilize the soil. A process taught to them by native Indians. Another thing, man made all of these chemical nutrients and god has made the organic nutrients. So let me ask you this, who do you trust? Personally, I will grow with nutrients that have proven themselves throughout history to benefit plant growth.

More food for thought. A plants make-up is changed when it absorbs chemicals from the ground, or in hydro, water. The cannaibs plant, just like the tobacco plant, absorbs anything and everything that is in its surrounding ground. Harmful salts, oil, radioactive particles, etc. It was for this reason that Cannabis hemp plants were planted in the aftermath of the Chernobyl disaster.

Why don't we let this argument die and let bygones be bygones.

Happy Toking

P.S.- nice looking pizza there Unicorn. You got a slice to spare for a hungry brother?

 

[SCF]

Yes slice of pizza please haha!


I think with organics you get a much richer taste, smell, flavor, and possible more potent.


there are more than 1 types of nitrogen by the way..... you said nitrogen is nitrogen.. whell urea is PISS! and in most chem ferts, and YUCK! there is another form of Nitrogen that brings out a better flavor. Fish emulsion, and other things offer this form. Say no to Urea!

 

[Guest]

but it's free.

 

[minds_I]

^^^^Agreed.

BTW, Unicorn, I never said I would not smoke....or in this case, eat yoru bud.

Shit, I eat Domino's Pizza with genuein Slag City Seasoned Simulated Pork Products so anything chemical you may use can not be anymore harmful the rubber pizza.

minds_I

 

[Guest]

peace to all...here is some bogglegum chem weed(sounds so silly) in the final flush...she is a pi-ball freak to so..so...good

 

[Guest]

This is no arguement everyone that has posted has strong opinions. Some choose organic and some choose chemicals. There is always the people that pee in there plants. I have learned lots from everyone. This is just a debate not an arguement. PAX