Organic Food Is No Healthier, Study Finds

[MattusMaximus]

Linky. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090729/sc_nm/us_food_organic)

Organic food has no nutritional or health benefits over ordinary food, according to a major study published Wednesday.

Researchers from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine said consumers were paying higher prices for organic food because of its perceived health benefits, creating a global organic market worth an estimated $48 billion in 2007.

A systematic review of 162 scientific papers published in the scientific literature over the last 50 years, however, found there was no significant difference. ...

I posted this on my FB page, and a couple of pro-organic food people are saying that better nutritional value is not the reason why people eat organic foods. They say the real reason is fear of "chemicals" and a concern for promoting better sustainability with farming.

This smacks slightly of moving the goalposts to me, but only a wee bit. I have asked the individuals in question for studies & research that supports their points, but have yet to hear back.

Anyone here got anything to add?

[tesscaline]

Linky. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090729/sc_nm/us_food_organic)



I posted this on my FB page, and a couple of pro-organic food people are saying that better nutritional value is not the reason why people eat organic foods. They say the real reason is fear of "chemicals" and a concern for promoting better sustainability with farming.

This smacks slightly of moving the goalposts to me, but only a wee bit. I have asked the individuals in question for studies & research that supports their points, but have yet to hear back.

Anyone here got anything to add?Indeed, most of the people I know who buy organic items do so not because of any nutritional difference, but because organic items are "more healthy" -- i.e. you're not eating chemical pesticides or fertilizers, and they seem to think that organic farming is more "healthy for the environment" than non-organic farming.

You are correct that there doesn't actually seem to be any evidence supporting those positions though -- I keep asking for it, and all anyone can give me is opinion pieces that neglect the actual science, if not out and out contradict it. It's just one big giant appeal to emotion, really.

[~enigma~]

Indeed, most of the people I know who buy organic items do so not because of any nutritional difference, but because organic items are "more healthy" -- i.e. you're not eating chemical pesticides or fertilizers, and they seem to think that organic farming is more "healthy for the environment" than non-organic farming.

You are correct that there doesn't actually seem to be any evidence supporting those positions though -- I keep asking for it, and all anyone can give me is opinion pieces that neglect the actual science, if not out and out contradict it. It's just one big giant appeal to emotion, really.
Agreed. Never heard it was healthier.

[godless dave]

I posted this on my FB page, and a couple of pro-organic food people are saying that better nutritional value is not the reason why people eat organic foods. They say the real reason is fear of "chemicals" and a concern for promoting better sustainability with farming.

They're right. I've never heard an organic food proponent claim it was healthier. The goal posts haven't moved, it was always about environmental impact and taste, not health.

[Ziggurat]

They're right. I've never heard an organic food proponent claim it was healthier. The goal posts haven't moved, it was always about environmental impact and taste, not health.

On the taste front, I suspect it's possible to get the same results with non-organic methods, if you spend more money. As or environmental impact, I've seen no real evidence of that. And I have good reason to think it's simply not true. Because it is less efficient, organic farming requires more land, which has obvious negative environmental consequences.

[sol invictus]

Just because it's not more nutritious doesn't mean it's not healthier. If eating pesticide residues is harmful, and organic food is identical to conventional apart from the lack of pesticides, then it's healthier. It's not clear this study addressed that, although the article does leap to that conclusion.

Regardless, I agree that personal health is only one of several reasons people have for buying organic food. But for me personally, buying food produced locally and by small farms is much more important than buying organic. It's hard to argue that organic produce that's harvested by machine, packed in plastic in an inert gas and flown in a jet across a continent is more environmentally friendly than vegetables grown 20 miles away with a small quantity of pesticides.

And I strongly suspect that the nutritional content of local produce IS generally better than average simply because it can be harvested when it's closer to being ready, and because small farmers tend to grow a larger variety of crops than huge conglomerates. For example, the celery one can find at farmer's markets is darker green (and much tastier) than the standard supermarket stuff, and I'd be willing to bet it's more nutritious.

[ben m]

I posted this on my FB page, and a couple of pro-organic food people are saying that better nutritional value is not the reason why people eat organic foods. They say the real reason is fear of "chemicals" and a concern for promoting better sustainability with farming.

This smacks slightly of moving the goalposts to me, but only a wee bit. I have asked the individuals in question for studies & research that supports their points, but have yet to hear back.


I never expected organic food to be *healthier* in a nutritional sense; a carrot is a carrot is a carrot.

My main concerns with industrial farms are:
Pesticide residue, which I'm worried about because we have no idea what the long-term effects are.
Fertilizer runoff, a well-documented problem for rivers and estuaries
Land stewardship; an intensively-farmed plot of nothing but cabbage---well, it supports cabbages and cabbage pests and that's about it, because you hose the weeds with RoundUp and plow the hell out of it every season and lose half the soil to the wind and rain. Organic farms, especially small ones, are more likely to interplant various crops, which is really good for insect and bird life; to use cover crops carefully; to support local bee populations; etc.


Quite frankly, if I could find a small farm which (a) minimizes pesticides, (b) aims for zero-runoff, and (c) maintains soil and biodiversity---well, after that I don't give a hoot whether they fertilize with inorganic ammonium nitrate versus, I dunno, bone meal. It so happens that our local super-sustainable farm is an organic one, and I really like their practices, so that's where we go.

One more thing: I buy organic milk, because I've found that (very reproducibly) it has a shelf life about twice as long as the store brand. No idea why.

ETA: adding to what Sol said, my local farm is more nutritious in the sense that their produce is delicious. Holy cow. I thought I didn't like fresh tomatoes until we started getting the heirlooms; now I love them and I'm healthier for it.

[Jorghnassen]

One more thing: I buy organic milk, because I've found that (very reproducibly) it has a shelf life about twice as long as the store brand. No idea why.

My guess would be that the organic milk you buy has traveled less than the store brand (which is probably whichever milk can be obtained at lowest cost), thus is fresher at time of purchase. Last year I was surprised how local garlic stayed fresh for months compared to the usual supermarket garlic which comes from China most of the time and has already spent months in a container by the time you buy it, and sprouts in a matter of weeks.

ETA: adding to what Sol said, my local farm is more nutritious in the sense that their produce is delicious. Holy cow. I thought I didn't like fresh tomatoes until we started getting the heirlooms; now I love them and I'm healthier for it.

Similar idea as above. The regular stuff is chosen because it can endure long travel/mass storage, not for taste. ETA: Another example: my uncle grows raspberries in his garden, and picked a particular variety that is sweeter than anything you'll buy commercially (even from farmer's markets) because the berries are fragile. Essentially, there's always a trade-off.

[Rocko]

There was, IIRC, some research a while back that suggested rats who ate non-organic had a higher incidence of cancer. And was seized on out of all proportion to the findings.

But yeah, as other has observed - I don't buy organic because I think it's healthier for me personally. I do think it's tastier, although I imagine that's because the breeds grown aren't the same as the ones farmed for "normal" produce.

But my main reason is that I think we're better off riding a system that's evolved over a long period of time and works than trying to tinker with it.

[Rocko]

One more thing: I buy organic milk, because I've found that (very reproducibly) it has a shelf life about twice as long as the store brand. No idea why.

ISTR this was discussed on a Skeptic's Guide episode. They said that because it's Organic, it has a less predictable shelf-life, so it's heat treated to some degree to take that into account.

[Michael Redman]

My main concerns with industrial farms are:


I don't think you should equate organic with small farm (or with locally grown). These are entirely separate issues.

[ravdin]

I don't know what the term "organic" means for the purpose of this study. My best understanding of "organic" when I see the label in the supermarket is that it's produced under arbitrary standards defined by the government. Color me not surprised if the label isn't particularly useful.

[roger]

They're right. I've never heard an organic food proponent claim it was healthier. The goal posts haven't moved, it was always about environmental impact and taste, not health.
Well, here you go. Whole Foods, no less:
http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=faq&dbid=17#Health





organically grown foods have been shown to contain substantially higher levels of nutrients
Or how about the Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association?
http://www.mofga.org/tabid/166/Default.aspx
simply stated, an organically cultivated pepper will be healthier and more nutritious than a conventionally cultivated pepper




Listen to Organic Food Info:
Organic food is known to contain 50% more nutrients, minerals and vitamins than produce that has been intensively farmed.http://www.organicfoodinfo.net/




Google will provide endless quotes along the same lines.

[ben m]

Because it is less efficient, organic farming requires more land, which has obvious negative environmental consequences.

That's probably true, and I am very conflicted about it. I hope (but have no evidence for) that on the balance, the better stewardship of non-monoculture organic farmland outweighs the fact that they're displacing some otherwise-wild land.

Also true: the world would be better off (healthwise and environmentally) if people ate less meat. The existence of inexpensive market vegetables is part of that, so I don't pretend that my locavore habits are leading towards some sort of anti-big-farm revolution. However, it's a shame that the US subsidizes corn and soy so much and artificially distorts the cost of cattle feed. We should subsidize the broccoli and tax the meat.

[Dragon]

I don't know what the term "organic" means for the purpose of this study. My best understanding of "organic" when I see the label in the supermarket is that it's produced under arbitrary standards defined by the government. Color me not surprised if the label isn't particularly useful.
Could you provide a link to these "standards defined by the government" ?

[ravdin]

Could you provide a link to these "standards defined by the government" ?

Sure, if you're looking for a cure for insomnia.

http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB?parentnav=COOPERATIVES&navid=ORGANIC_CERTIFICATIO&navtype=RT

ETA: This is the US government's "organic" certification requirements, and I would imagine the standards are different in the UK.

[Jorghnassen]

Could you provide a link to these "standards defined by the government" ?

I'm guessing you're looking for this (http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/nop).

EDIT: D'oh! Beaten, but it is a different page.

[roger]

Could you provide a link to these "standards defined by the government" ?Look at the whole foods link I provided above. The FDA defines what is acceptable to be labeled "organic".

edit: Jorghnassen's link is better.

[pgwenthold]

Just because it's not more nutritious doesn't mean it's not healthier.

I agree. But then again, from the OP

Organic food has no nutritional or health benefits

The claim is not only that it is not more nutritious, but that it is also not healthier.

[ben m]

I don't think you should equate organic with small farm (or with locally grown). These are entirely separate issues.

I know. I suspect that most of the Whole Foods stuff is extremely industrially-produced, and (other than the pesticide issue) it doesn't appeal to me enough to justify the price.

There's no official label for the aspects of food I actually care about; I don't need one, though, because (and I feel very lucky in this) I know my local farmer personally; I've seen his land and his practices.

[ravdin]

I know. I suspect that most of the Whole Foods stuff is extremely industrially-produced, and (other than the pesticide issue) it doesn't appeal to me enough to justify the price.

There's no official label for the aspects of food I actually care about; I don't need one, though, because (and I feel very lucky in this) I know my local farmer personally; I've seen his land and his practices.

That's pretty much the point I wanted to make. There's no special reason to trust that your food is healthier just because the government approves putting a label marked "ORGANIC" on it.

[back2basics]

The appendix of the FSA report shows that some nutrients, such as beta-carotene, are as much as 53% higher in organic food, but such differences are not reflected in its conclusions.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/29/organic-food-nutrition-fsa

I thought the possitive effects of Beta-carotene were pretty well established?

[Ziggurat]

Also true: the world would be better off (healthwise and environmentally) if people ate less meat. The existence of inexpensive market vegetables is part of that, so I don't pretend that my locavore habits are leading towards some sort of anti-big-farm revolution. However, it's a shame that the US subsidizes corn and soy so much and artificially distorts the cost of cattle feed. We should subsidize the broccoli and tax the meat.

I'm all for getting rid of subsidies, for a whole host of reasons. Taxing meat sounds like a bad idea, though. While meat production is inefficient and hence worse for the environment than vegetable/fruit/grain production, it provides a potentially massive benefit: it builds excess capacity into the system. If something bad happens which takes a lot of our farming capacity offline, we're in deep **** if we've got no excess capacity. But in a free market economy, nobody can afford to keep capacity idle, so how do you get excess capacity in the system? By making an inefficiently produced product for which there is still significant demand. Like meat. If something bad happens, we then have the option to reduce meat production and shift the livestock feed capacity directly to human food.

[back2basics]

Links to the full report.

http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/organicreviewappendices.pdf
http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/organicreviewreport.pdf

[Michael Redman]

There's no official label for the aspects of food I actually care about; I don't need one, though, because (and I feel very lucky in this) I know my local farmer personally; I've seen his land and his practices.

You are talking about food, right? ;)

I think many people started buying organic because they wanted local and/or better quality associated with smaller operations. Now there is a growing local food movement, which is great for those of us who want good, local stuff, but would rather our farmers use chemical fertilizers than spread feces on our food.

[Arthur Denton]

I was about to post the same link. I'm late, it seems.

I've been trying to convince my family that organic doesn't mean healthy. It's hard, specially since we produce part of our own food, with organic methods, and our fruit plantation is also going to be organic (we're first reverting the decay of the land with "industrial" methods, by inorganic product usage). Mom doesn't care much about it, but dad is a strong supporter of organic food, he says they're better, and that agrotoxic will eventually give you cancer or something.

My point of view is, you should have both - organic and "industrial" - avaiable at the market for people who prefere one over the other, but the advertizing should be regulated so you wouldn't mislead people into paying more for the same. (Even though usually these products are sold in smaller packages, with prettier arrangements, and seem to be more colorfull than the standard pile of "industrial" raw food products. That's my personal experience, the organic products seem to have a special shine, but I'm sure it's just the package).

[sol invictus]

The claim is not only that it is not more nutritious, but that it is also not healthier.

That's what the article says, I know - but doesn't seem to be supported by the research. I think it's just an unsupported conclusion the journalist jumped to. From the actual report:

This review does not address contaminant content (such as herbicide, pesticide and fungicide residues) of organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs, or the environmental impacts of organic and conventional agricultural practices.

[sol invictus]

I don't think you should equate organic with small farm (or with locally grown). These are entirely separate issues.

Yes - and in the US at least, many organic producers are very large and engage in practices that are very far from sustainable or environmentally friendly. That's why I value local and small over organic (of course if it's all three, even better).

[Capsid]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/29/organic-food-nutrition-fsa

I thought the possitive effects of Beta-carotene were pretty well established?
Yes, but having 53% more of it in an organic carrot doesn't make it more nutritious or healthy. There's still enough in an non organic carrot.

[pgwenthold]

Yes - and in the US at least, many organic producers are very large and engage in practices that are very far from sustainable or environmentally friendly.

I agree. What with the assumption that "organic farmers" are using better farming technique?

Anecdotally, I know a couple of organic dairy farmers. The reason they got into organic dairy is because they were unable to properly manage a dairy herd to keep them competitive in conventional means. Is there any reason to think they are any better at organic herd management? Or are they just relying on the fact that they can get paid inflated prices by going organic regardless of their ineptitude?

I know for a fact that the latter is true.

[!Kaggen]

Quick question.
Any organic farmers on this forum who could provide some input to this conversation about organic farming?
I suspect a conversation about the benefits of nuclear power on this forum would be rather empty with no inputs from an actual physicist.

[CurtC]

That's what the article says, I know - but doesn't seem to be supported by the research. I think it's just an unsupported conclusion the journalist jumped to. From the actual report:This review does not address contaminant content (such as herbicide, pesticide and fungicide residues) of organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs, or the environmental impacts of organic and conventional agricultural practices.

Interesting - I saw the news article and assumed that the claim of no nutritional difference included any effects of pesticides. I know there are many people who prefer to buy organic because of the pesticides that could be on non-organic, but I don't know of anyone who thinks that organic is somehow different in relation to nutrient content.

This study will be dismissed by the organic promoters, and rightly so. I don't think there's any human health effect of tiny pesticide residues on non-organic foods, but if this study didn't even address that issue, it completely missed the point.

[Dragon]

Sure, if you're looking for a cure for insomnia.

http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB?parentnav=COOPERATIVES&navid=ORGANIC_CERTIFICATIO&navtype=RT

ETA: This is the US government's "organic" certification requirements, and I would imagine the standards are different in the UK.
Cheers - I think I've found the UK (in effect EU) equivalent on the DEFRA site (http://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/organic/standards/index.htm) - as you say, insomnia-inducing. One intersting thing though is that the approved certification bodies (http://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/organic/standards/certbodies/approved.htm) all seem to be private companies or associations. I'm guessing that these very organisations had a large part in drawing up the standards in the first place.
As !Kaggen says above it would be good if someone actually involved in organic farming gave their input. FWIW I'm pretty sceptical about the benefits of organic farming, there does seem to be a large dose of magical thinking involved in some of the stuff I've read - "natural" must be better etc. That said I'm quite prepared to believe that less intensive production methods with breeds of animals and varieties of plants chosen for quality rather than quantity will produce better tasting food, organic or not.

[Uncayimmy]

They're right. I've never heard an organic food proponent claim it was healthier. The goal posts haven't moved, it was always about environmental impact and taste, not health.

That's not what the Main Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association say (first site found in a quick search):
http://www.mofga.org/tabid/166/Default.aspx

The answer is multi-faceted, but simply stated, an organically cultivated pepper will be healthier and more nutritious than a conventionally cultivated pepper. By growing in a living soil where microbiotic activity constantly breaks organic matter and solid minerals into nutrients a plant can use, an organically cultivated pepper plant always has exactly what it needs to grow, from germination to fruit set, and the plant will be healthier throughout its lifespan than a conventionally grown pepper plant. As a result, the organically grown plant will be able to add more and complex components to all of its parts, including its fruit, resulting in a pepper chock-full of micro-nutrients and trace minerals that are important for human nutrition.

ETA: Somebody else showed the same link. Oh, well.

[Dr. Trintignant]

My guess would be that the organic milk you buy has traveled less than the store brand (which is probably whichever milk can be obtained at lowest cost), thus is fresher at time of purchase.

This may be true in some cases, but not in general.

I occasionally buy "UHT" milk (Ultra High Temperature pasteurized) for camping trips and such, since it has a very long shelf-life (while sealed). My local store stocks this in the "organic" section (Horizon brand), which seemed odd to me until I found that this milk often has to travel much longer distances than store brand milk, and the UHT process ensures that it doesn't go bad in transit.

UHT milk also tastes worse than the normal stuff, but it's not terrible...

- Dr. Trintignant

[technoextreme]

That's what the article says, I know - but doesn't seem to be supported by the research. I think it's just an unsupported conclusion the journalist jumped to. From the actual report:
Yeah but the pesticide claim is a bit of woo woo namely because loads of stuff poisonous stuff is naturally found in plants. Your never going to get rid of crap like that because it occurs naturally. So far Im up to Arsenic, Aluminum, and Barium that occurs naturally in plants. None of which are really that savory to eat large amounts of.

[Rolfe]

I kind of said my piece on this already, in this and subsequent posts.

The misconception that "organic" livestock production is more humane than conventional production is behind many people's ill-informed support of the organic movement.

Now, I'm all for extensive livestock production. I'm all for space and room to move around and freedom to express natural behaviour and so on. However, "organic" systems have no monopoly on that. Certainly, the organic rules include prohibitions on the more extreme forms of intensification. However, most livestock systems around here are extensive enough to fit these criteria, if the rest of the "organic" woo was added to the mix. Promotion of the fallacy that conventional farming is all of the "stalag sheep" variety and only organic animals are free to roam around is one of the more insidious and pernicious of the lies told by this bunch of cranks. (Also bear in mind that being outside is not always best for the animal. Where would you rather be in a January snowstorm? Out on the hill, trying to revive your freezing newborn lamb while you yourself are cold and wet, or in a nice cosy shed with a straw bed and a feeding trough and the shepherd only a few yards away?)

Support extensive farming systems on welfare grounds, by all means. Support high-welfare management systems, whether housed or outdoors. However, the minute they slap on the "organic" label, avoid them like the plague. On welfare grounds.

"Science" has spent many decades developing safe and effective veterinary medicines for both therapeutic and preventative purposes. These products contribute immensely to animal welfare, both by preventing diseases which are inherent in the very nature of the animals' life cycles, and by treating disease when it strikes. Safety has to be emphasised here, because very extensive and rigorous testing for safety (of the consumer) is a major part of the pharmaceutical licensing process.

The Luddite nature of the organic movement chooses to regard these products as "evil chemicals", and demonises their use. The ethos is profoundly anti-vaccination, even though there is no possible effect that vaccination can have on the end product. The ethos is also profoundly against prophylactic treatment, in spite of the fact that prophylactic anti-parasite treatment is a major contributor to animal health and welfare. And the ethos also heavily discourages even the treatment of sick animals.

Yes, the guidelines on paper say soothing things indicating that the welfare of the animal must come before the organic certification, but in practice it just doesn't work this way. The loss of organic status consequent on the use of veterinary medicines is a sufficiently important economic factor that instances of animals which should have been treated (or treated much earlier than they in fact were) are common.

Just one anecdote, from the spring of this year. I received into the post mortem room the carcasses of two young ewes. I was surprised by their size, because they looked like six-month-old lambs, but there are no six-month-old lambs in April. The were in fact a year old. They were stunted in growth, and also extremely thin. Body fat was virtually absent. The carcasses were soaked in foul diarrhoea. Routine post mortem examination revealed that they had died because of a severe infestation of gastrointestinal parasites.

I checked the paperwork. It stated that the farm was organic. By this stage, that was no great surprise to me. It also revealed that these were the ninth and tenth fatalities in the group, all with similar signs.

A farmer would not usually expect to lose any of a group of young replacement breeding stock, and while one-off incidents do happen, most would be shouting for help when a second death occurred. The condition that killed these sheep was easily prevented and easily treated - but of course that would have meant using the "evil chemicals". It's also a chronic condition. These poor sheep had been losing condition, getting thinner and thinner and suffering from increasingly severe diarrhoea for weeks. TEN of them (remember, young adults, who should have been in the prime of life) had died before any action was taken. Is this animal welfare? Not in my book.

Oh, but they were free to roam the hills! Well, whoopee. They were Blackface sheep. That's what Blackface sheep do. That's how they're all managed. The only difference was that they were not accorded the right to either preventative or therapeutic medical treatment.

And don't get me started on organic milk.

Oh, but I will give a quick mention to a new poultry farming initiative that's on the drawing board for near where I live. It involves about ten large intensive sheds, which will be pretty intrusive in the countryside. It's actually intended to be large-scale organic production. There's just enough access to outside runs to satisfy the "free-range" tick-boxes. However, don't go away with the impression that these are happy chickens freely pecking away around the farmyard. They ain't.

My opposition to the organic movement in livestock farming is three-fold. First, if there is indeed a problem with drug residues in animal products, action ought to be taken to eliminate this across the board. It's no solution to create a little ghetto of "organic" virtue and ignore the bulk of our food production. However, the fact is that there really isn't such a problem. Regulations governing the use of medicinal products and in particular withdrawal times are effective in preventing residues reaching the consumer. Arbitrary diktats that all withdrawal times should be doubled and/or products avoided altogether for a small sector of the market are simply ideology gone mad, and do nothing to improve consumer protection.

Second, there is the overt animal welfare problem, relating to cases such as I described above.

And third, the is the blatant promotion of absolute woo. I already mentioned the anti-vax element. Even worse than that, the organic movement is heavily into the promotion of homoeopathy, on the grounds that homoeopathic treatments obviously leave no drug resudues. Yes, that's because there's nothing in them! Nothing at all! Frankly, if you're going to deny a sick animal medical treatment on ideological grounds, then at least face up to what you're doing, and please refrain from doling out magic shaken-up sugar pills to kid yourself that you're doing something to help the poor beast.

They're also very much into unlicensed remedies of all sorts, especially anything herbal. The problem here is that herbal remedies, if they do anything at all, also have the potential to leave residues. However, as they're not licensed and there is no established withdrawal time, then that's all right then. These products are "natural", so they must be safe, and should be used in preference to licensed products of proven efficacy. In fact the result of this is often that products of dubious efficacy are relied on, and nobody has the foggiest idea whether or not there might be a residue effect. If of course a product of this nature was seen to have useful efficacy, the probability is that someone would do a formal trial on it and acquire a proper product license and formal evidence of any residue effects (with a statutory withdrawal time) - at which point it would, in the eyes of the organic movement, become an evil chemical to be avoided.

The animal welfare implications of the organic movement are something which it is absolutely essential to consider when discussing this subject. And "organic" methods do not come up smelling of roses. As I said, by all means support high-welfare farming methods and extensive livestock rearing systems. Just remember that many conventional systems are just as free-range as the organic ones, and that the organic ideology is about a lot more than just free-range space.

Rolfe.

[Subduction Zone]

One advantage that locally grown food has over mega-farm food is that they use different subspecies of vegetables. I live in the state of Washington, but grew up in Minnesota. In Minnesota we could grow our own tomatoes, in fact our garden got so big we hardly ever bought vegetables growing up. A locally grown tomato like a Burpee Big Boy has ten times the flavor of a California grown tomato. Our locally grown tomatoes main concern was taste, a Californian tomato's main concern seemed to be shipability. There are other treats that you can get if you grow your own or find a local source are "New Potatoes". New Potatoes are very fresh non mature potatoes. If it is a week old out of the garden it may say New Potatoes at the store, but they aren't any more. But overall most organic food that I have seen is just a marketing ploy to overcharge for not the best vegetables.

[MattusMaximus]

Well, here you go. Whole Foods, no less:
http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=faq&dbid=17#Health

Or how about the Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association?
http://www.mofga.org/tabid/166/Default.aspx

Listen to Organic Food Info:
http://www.organicfoodinfo.net/

Google will provide endless quotes along the same lines.

Damn, busted. Thanks for the links, roger.

[Kaylee]

I shop in the organic dept. when I want to buy:


* Canned, boxed or bottled goods that have little or even no added sugars.
As a bonus, they are often cheaper than similar products in the the grocery store's main shopping area. For example, cereals and peanut butter is less expensive in my grocery store's organic dept. My theory is because they are produced by smaller companies with much lower advertising costs than the larger food manufacturing companies, and they are passing the savings on down to the consumers. (Not everything though, I'm paying more for the boxed chicken broth and some other products I buy every once in a while.)

* When I want to buy some unlabeled products in bulk, (e.g., oatmeal, rice, hulled barley, quinoa, flax seeds, etc. ) The bulk dept. is in the organic dept. in my grocery store. It's less expensive and I can get the exact quantities that I need.

* Sugar. Because I can get the type of sugar (rapadura) that's processed so that it still retains trace minerals. It appears to be easier for me to digest without triggering addictive type behaviors in me.
(I've been dieting but I still have to have my chocolate! :) So I've been drinking chocolate milk a few times a week, but chocolate is impossible to consume without sugar -- its too bitter. But I can have one cup of chocolate milk and be satisfied with it, I don't feel compelled to drink 20 more cups of chocolate milk immediately. Usually when I have sugary foods I simply can't feel satisfied and I end up wanting to eat even more of the stuff than I did originally. )

The sugar is a lot more expensive than in the main area of the grocery store. But for some reason, the organic dept.'s honey is less expensive. :confused:

[quarky]

I have something to say here, but it just got eaten in cyberspace. Boy, I hate when that happens. It was the best thing I've written. I'll try again tomorrow, if I still care.

btw, I dig sol invictus's take on this.

I grew organic produce for ten years before I knew it was organic. To us, it was simply cheaper, at the scale of our operation.
Buying chemicals would have meant a 100 mile drive to procure them. So we kissed off certain crops; watched for bugs; learned a few things; ate some good fresh food...and as a former chemist, i was always glad for the inorganic nitrogen that fell from the sky during electric storms.

Organic agriculture's marketability was something noticed by a hippy-coke dealer dude.
The rest of us just liked to hang out in the country and grow potatoes; stoned on organic pot, naked, and mostly lazy.

It was a "do-it-yourself" ethic, if anything ethical at all. It had to do with being involved in a relationship with a cheap piece of land, and a desire to not live in a city for awhile.

A carrot is not a carrot is not a carrot. The nutrients in a carrot vary wildly; especially vitamin A.
It doesn't matter where the nutrients come from.

Yet, if you're trying to maximize the efficiency of your carrot operation, you're going to provide the minimum required nutrients to get a product that looks like a good carrot. Who can blame them?

Meanwhile, your hobby carrot, like your yard-bird eggs, will rock your world.

[Aepervius]

My parents have a small farm where they produce fruit (small orchard of 12 trees) and legumes (~1 hectare) they also brew (and still brow) their own cidre & calvados with the apple. Their ONLY concern from the start (30 years ago) was to limit pesticide (to which they have a quite extreme irrational fear), and enhance the taste by using variety which are reputed to be more tasty (I never did a double blind but most tomatoe I buy taste like water, but those of my parents taste like... tomatoe). It never had anything to do with being more nutritious or less polluting or whatever. That said they never sold anything, just gave it away to family, neighbours, and perfect stranger.

In winter , they try to buy organic food due to the same concern : pesticide, and the hope that organic food growing process allow them to be a tad bit tastier than the normal one. That said, from what I read on organic foods laws, I think people are deluding themselves. Sometimes the difference between widely cultivated one and organic one is only the quantity of pesticide per hectare. The rest being identical.

[quarky]

Grow your own 'anything'.
Do it however you want.

It will be better.

[Schwarzwald]

What about 'organic' meats?

I actually find that there is a difference in taste with cows that have been fed a purely natural diet, instead of hormones and other cow bits.

[!Kaggen]

Since I am a farmer, soil scientist and horticulturist.
My input.
I have been involved in the "organic" farming movement for 16 years.
I was converted when I went to work on a "bio-dynamic" farm 16 years ago.
I had no idea about "organic", "biodynamic" farming and the reason I went to work there was to find some head space.
I developed Ankylosing spondylitis whilst doing compulsory military service in the then apartheid government of South Africa. Luckily I managed to avoid being in conflict situations with Angolans and my fellow South African "black" brothers by being a musician in the army band.
The Ankylosing spondylitis was devastating and made me very depressed.
I took 2 x 75mg Indomethacin (http://www.rxlist.com/indocin-drug.htm) daily for two years.
After 4 months on the Bio-dynamic farm I stopped taken the Indomethacin and in the last 14 years ago have only occasional needed to take Indomethacin.
We mostly ate what we produced on this farm vegetables, fruit, milk products and eggs. We did buy in grains, sugar, tea, coffee, salt and spices. I do eat meat, but since the farmer didn't this was very occasionally when one of the old laying hens was no longer productive, perhaps twice on my whole time there of 8 months.
What most struck me about the food was how little of it I needed for the amount of manual labor I did. We only really ate 2 meals a day. I have never been able to put on weight being one of those skinny types and during my time on this farm I weighed the most I ever weighed and was filled out. I had never felt so physically and mentally healthy. The other thing about the food was its taste. It was as if I had never eaten vegetables before. When I went home to visit family, I only eat meat, the vegetables were disgusting.

I subsequently decided to make a career out of farming.
I then went to university got two degrees in agriculture were I learn t nothing about farming and lots about academia.
Whilst I studied I still worked within the small "organic" farming community and read up as much as I could in the scientific literature and general literature about farming methods to reduce inputs, recycle nutrients and improve soil, plant, animal, human and environmental health.

A small anecdote from my academic stint.
I did a review of the scientific literature on the benefits to soil quality using organic farming techniques. I presented a specific study done by researchers from the University of Wageningen, Holland which used well established models to predict production output from soil quality parameters, excluding fertilizer additions. Using the model they found that soils farmed "bio-dynamically" would outproduce their conventional counterparts by up to 100%. What does this mean, conventional farming methods are counterproductive. It destroys soil quality and replaces the lost production with fertilizer. The soils science lecturers only comment was, "so what you cannot eat soil". I leave you to ponder that masterly statement of "avoiding the bleeding obvious".

Getting back to what I had learnt out in the world of hard knocks.
After getting very involved with the whole issue of organic standards within South Africa, I attending the first international conference on the subject in Germany. As I have noted from the posts, others are realizing what a minefield this subject is. This conference highlighted this with gusto. The problem is no one agrees. Need I say more except that the USDA wants everyone to agree with them. I came away from this conference realizing two things.
1. Regulations are about one thing only, protectionism.
2. Regulations prevent us learning anything new.
The non-academic organic movement has developed by innovators who traveled the globe exploring traditional techniques and experimenting on the farm. To now standardized this knowledge is paramount to regulating research in physics. Completely absurd and counter productive.
As more people get involved in "organic" farming with more brain power new discovery's of more efficient methods to farm will be made. This process is much faster than any regulation process.

I therefore gave up on any kind of regulation farming as I am interested in innovation and not regulation.

The other factor 1. which also made me drop regulation farming is the protectionism involved in food retailing. Supermarkets/middleman want protectionism as it reduces the chance of rapid change and stabilizes their business models. These models are outdated and completely unsustainable as they rely heavily on cheap energy which allows the concentration of resources and wastes. These approach obviously then prevents innovation by farmers and makes them slaves to these retailers.

The solution is what a few have alluded to.
The local food movement.
No need for regulation as the sales are directly between the producer and consumer. I don't know anyone who goes back to the hairdresser who gives crappy haircuts.
The results are:
1. the farmer is free to innovate without having to fit in a specific box.
2. customer feedback as regards quality and pricing is immediate and eliminates fancy academic techniques
3. the impact on the environment is minimal (reduced transport, reduced packaging, reduced lighting, reduced concrete, etc etc)
4. innovative finance industry free funding such as Community Supported Agriculture (CSA-try Google for more info)
5. Socializing between rural and urban communities
the list goes on and on.

I now own and run an experimental farm which tests any and all combination of farming methods and supplies locally to a food market.
I have found Japanese methods of farming most innovative and we concentrate on these.
I also have a business which uses micro-organisms to manage urban organic waste.

There is no co-incidence that communities which have the locavore practice ingrained in their culture live the longest "active" lives e.g. Okinawan's, Italian's, Majorcan's, Sardinians, Corsicans.

Just to add a note on the OP premise:
Evaluating nutritional quality of food from different food production methods is a red herring. Just taking into account the placebo effect which for obvious reasons is not included in feeding trials eliminates the validity of the trials. However when it comes to nutrition the placebo effect is huge, simply since eating in human culture is not like popping a pill. You don't do it in the bathroom alone before brushing your teeth. The fact that you might think about where you food comes from, how it grows or the animal was raised, who the farmer was, was the salesperson friendly, was the environment were you bought the food pleasent,what it looks like, how you prepare it, who you eat it with, how you eat it...... you get the idea. Any experiments on nutrition is almost close to meaningless in the real world.

So the bottom line is this, farming and eating is a very very complicated process and makes cosmology look decidedly easy by comparison. We know next to nothing about soil micro-organisms compared to our knowledge of cosmic origins. Lets face it our culture looks down on farming as a inferior career which is relegated to the dumber members of society. The average age of the american farmer is 60yrs old!!!If anything I hope my story inspires young people with brains to get involved with farming rather than physics, chemistry and math. We certainly would not want the dumb people in society to run our nuclear power stations, why do we let them produce the food we put into our stomachs???

[quarky]

!Kaggen, your post is like a breath of fresh air to me.

The 'bent' of this forum is to treat food production like any other production. Organic is woo. Its probably fair to say that most people here have never grown anything edible, and there is an unbridled optimism about modern agriculture, which is actually the most inefficient way to grow food. Few are willing to admit that we have a serious problem; that our food sucks-ass; that obesity is an epidemic; that we are out on a limb; that we are trashing our soil; enslaving mammals in a sick way; and patting ourselves on the back over how smart it all is.

Its not smart. Its not sustainable. Our food production systems should not be a source of pride. I find it equivalent to coal fired power plants.

Some here go as far as to claim that they will avoid organic agriculture because it is wrong; cruel; archaic, and so forth. The links prove it, don't they?

So, eat at McDonalds. Its efficient.
Or just grow something; anything; a tomato plant in a bucket on your condo's balcony.
Or not. Buy your tomatoes. Remain clueless about the journey those tomatoes have taken; be proud of the pesticides; the science; the wonder of it all...and ignore how crappy the tomato actually is.

[Rolfe]

McDonald's claims to use organic milk. I wouldn't touch organic milk on welfare grounds.

I have actually seen these poor, illthriven, pest-ridden animals labelled organic) OK, they're not all like that), and frankly these farmers should be ashamed of themselves.

And any so-called "farming system" that explicitly recommends and promotes the use of homoeopathy rather than actual medicines has lost the plot.

Rolfe.

[!Kaggen]

McDonald's claims to use organic milk. I wouldn't touch organic milk on welfare grounds.

I have actually seen these poor, illthriven, pest-ridden animals labelled organic) OK, they're not all like that), and frankly these farmers should be ashamed of themselves.

And any so-called "farming system" that explicitly recommends and promotes the use of homoeopathy rather than actual medicines has lost the plot.

Rolfe.

Your right of course, but do not give up on animal production since.
Perennial grasslands are the most efficient way of building soil, preventing soil erosion and capturing carbon dioxide in temperate grassland ecosystems which are vast areas of the world (e.g.prairies, steppes, pampas). These areas are now where we produce almost all of our annual grains and soybeans of which the vast majority goes to intensive animal farming. Annual grain/soybean farming is the biggest cause of soil erosion by far and has resulted in the loss of stored soil carbon to atmosphere from these soils which was built up over 100's years. The transport and processing of these grains/soybeans use's massive amounts of fossil fuels and we end up with methane, polluted groundwater, "swine flu", animal abuse, obesity and mountains of faeces. In other words moving away from this completely idiotic system, in my opinion much more harmful than homeopathy could ever be, we must. The solution is simple really. Ruminants excel at digesting grass which they have evolved to do over thousands of year. Agricultural research over the last 30 years has ignored this completely and concentrated on getting ruminants to eat grains/soya. And they say evolution is well know to scientists, bah!!They are worse than creationists, they call themselves scientist then ignore evolution. By re-establishing perennial grasslands with ruminant help; the ecology of ruminants and grasslands is well enough understood; we can revert to eating meat with animal welfare sorted and the environment in tact. If we combine this with grassland fowl which evolved to follow the ruminant herds around and scratch in their faeces for grubs we can even eat chicken and eggs. Add a few bunny's and we are looking pretty. This method is being developed by farmers for example (http://www.polyfacefarms.com/) around the world and together with the work of the Land Institue (http://www.landinstitute.org/vnews/display.v) which has been working for some time to develop perennial grains we are well on our way to a sustainable agriculture. We just need to ignore the retailers, regulations and academic GMO rhetoric of empty promises.

[Capsid]

@Rolfe, the perception seems to be that animal welfare in organic farms is superior

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jul/30/organic-food-nutritional-value

Animal welfare is another hugely compelling reason why people choose to buy organic food. Again, anyone who has examined both models of farming will tell you that you can see the marked difference with your own eyes. This is not to say that some conventionally managed farms do not care greatly for the well being and living conditions of their livestock because many clearly do, but they don't operate under exacting, verifiable standards in the way organic farmers must.

I'd like to be able to refute this based on what you are saying. Is there any evidence to cite?

[!Kaggen]

@Rolfe, the perception seems to be that animal welfare in organic farms is superior

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jul/30/organic-food-nutritional-value

Animal welfare is another hugely compelling reason why people choose to buy organic food. Again, anyone who has examined both models of farming will tell you that you can see the marked difference with your own eyes. This is not to say that some conventionally managed farms do not care greatly for the well being and living conditions of their livestock because many clearly do, but they don't operate under exacting, verifiable standards in the way organic farmers must.

I'd like to be able to refute this based on what you are saying. Is there any evidence to cite?

Sorry if I am barging in, but having superior animal welfare standards to conventional animal farming is hardly difficult. They have no standards at all!
Try visiting a large scale conventional animal farm. I doubt very much they will let you close to their production areas. Its embarrassing.

For example. Modern broiler chickens grow so quickly (0-1.5kg in 21 days) that most 50% have Tibial dyschondroplasia and many (no one will admit for obvious reasons, but personal experience shows up to 20%) end up being trampled to death and eaten by their friends (yes chickens are cannibals) if not discovered soon enough. At stocking densities of 23 birds per square meter it unavoidable. Organic farmers mostly avoid these fast growing breeds and are limited to 6 birds per square meter by regulation.

However I think what Rolfe is referring to is called "benign neglect". Its a bit like the Seventh Day Adventist (I think that's right) idea of leaving sick people to get better by "gods" will, except an organic farmer might use some herbs and homeopathy. Of course this is not acceptable especially when we know that the disease/condition is easily treatable with standard medicines. This is not what is promoted by serious organic animal farmers who have a genuine concern for animal welfare and practice organic methods at all, but yes the organic regulations can allow those that do practice this to hide behind them. Conventional animal farmers avoid this by preventing access to their facilities to check under the guise of regulations, using hygiene as an excuse. However there are far more incinerators on conventional animal farms than organic farms believe me.
Like I said before regulations suck.
Ask the farmer at the market what he does when his animals get sick and/or visit him to make sure.
That's the best way.

[Capsid]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jul/30/organic-food-nutritional-value





Sorry if I am barging in, but having superior animal welfare standards to conventional animal farming is hardly difficult. They have no standards at all!
Try visiting a large scale conventional animal farm. I doubt very much they will let you close to their production areas. Its embarrassing.

For example. Modern broiler chickens grow so quickly (0-1.5kg in 21 days) that most 50% have Tibial dyschondroplasia and many (no one will admit for obvious reasons, but personal experience shows up to 20%) end up being trampled to death and eaten by their friends (yes chickens are cannibals) if not discovered soon enough. At stocking densities of 23 birds per square meter it unavoidable. Organic farmers mostly avoid these fast growing breeds and are limited to 6 birds per square meter by regulation.

However I think what Rolfe is referring to is called "benign neglect". Its a bit like the Seventh Day Adventist (I think that's right) idea of leaving sick people to get better by "gods" will, except an organic farmer might use some herbs and homeopathy. Of course this is not acceptable especially when we know that the disease/condition is easily treatable with standard medicines. This is not what is promoted by serious organic animal farmers who have a genuine concern for animal welfare and practice organic methods at all, but yes the organic regulations can allow those that do practice this to hide behind them. Conventional animal farmers avoid this by preventing access to their facilities to check under the guise of regulations, using hygiene as an excuse. However there are far more incinerators on conventional animal farms than organic farms believe me.
Like I said before regulations suck.
Ask the farmer at the market what he does when his animals get sick and/or visit him to make sure.
That's the best way.Thanks for your reply. I'm after non-anecdotal evidence in the true sceptic manner. Asking a farmer what happens when his animals get sick may not result in a truthful answer I suspect.

And how do I differentiate a serious organic farmer from one who is not?

[!Kaggen]

Thanks for your reply. I'm after non-anecdotal evidence in the true sceptic manner. Asking a farmer what happens when his animals get sick may not result in a truthful answer I suspect.

And how do I differentiate a serious organic farmer from one who is not?

Like a good sceptic it is always wise to be well informed, read, read, read.
Read about organic farming. Its history, practices, scientific studies. Of course there is a lot of BS, but perseverance and a level head helps.
If the farmer does not give you a straight forward answer to a question
I recommend you walk away.
Visiting the farmers farm if you have doubts. Look at their bookshelf first. Then take a walk around the farm. If they have nothing to hide you won't find anything to hide.
In my experience a few well put questions to see if the farmer understands organic farming sorts out the rot.
Also those that will not explain why they do something other than, the regulations say so, are false.
Experience counts of course so get started.

[Darat]

...snip...

Sorry if I am barging in, but having superior animal welfare standards to conventional animal farming is hardly difficult. They have no standards at all!
Try visiting a large scale conventional animal farm. I doubt very much they will let you close to their production areas. Its embarrassing.

...snip...

Perhaps this is the case where you live but not in this country.

[CurtC]

A carrot is not a carrot is not a carrot. The nutrients in a carrot vary wildly; especially vitamin A.
It doesn't matter where the nutrients come from.

Yet, if you're trying to maximize the efficiency of your carrot operation, you're going to provide the minimum required nutrients to get a product that looks like a good carrot. Who can blame them?
What you're saying here is what this study actually addressed. I had never heard the idea that organic produce has better nutritional value, but this study shows that's not true.


...modern agriculture, which is actually the most inefficient way to grow food.Inefficient in what way? Modern agriculture is optimized to be the most efficient at getting the most produce out of input resources, including land use and seeds/chemicals/water. A huge criticism of organic is that it's so inefficient.


Few are willing to admit that we have a serious problem; that our food sucks-ass; that obesity is an epidemic;Yes, but that has nothing to do with the conventional/organic agriculture. Our food sucks and we're obese because we're not eating the right kinds of things. It would be a good idea for people to eat more fresh fruits and vegetables, but it doesn't matter whether those are "organic" or not.


So, eat at McDonalds. Its efficient.
I'm really looking forward to seeing your definition of "efficient."

[!Kaggen]

Perhaps this is the case where you live but not in this country.

Its the case in most countries.
and the UK gets most of its meat from them.

[!Kaggen]

What you're saying here is what this study actually addressed. I had never heard the idea that organic produce has better nutritional value, but this study shows that's not true.


Inefficient in what way? Modern agriculture is optimized to be the most efficient at getting the most produce out of input resources, including land use and seeds/chemicals/water. A huge criticism of organic is that it's so inefficient.


Yes, but that has nothing to do with the conventional/organic agriculture. Our food sucks and we're obese because we're not eating the right kinds of things. It would be a good idea for people to eat more fresh fruits and vegetables, but it doesn't matter whether those are "organic" or not.



I'm really looking forward to seeing your definition of "efficient."

Efficient is when you take costs that are not included in the "most produce out of input resources" equation you refer to

Social costs
Carbon emissions costs
Pollution costs
Subsidy's
Soil quality costs
Biodiversity loss costs
Ecosystem destruction costs
Animal welfare costs
Human mental health costs
Traditional knowledge loss costs
Cultural value loss costs
Imagination loss costs

Give me some more time to waste and I could keep going.

Of course simple maths arguments of a=b is useful for a dilettante. increase a = increase b.

Take quarky 's advice go farm and see what you think after that.

[MattusMaximus]

The 'bent' of this forum is to treat food production like any other production. Organic is woo. Its probably fair to say that most people here have never grown anything edible, and there is an unbridled optimism about modern agriculture, which is actually the most inefficient way to grow food. Few are willing to admit that we have a serious problem; that our food sucks-ass; that obesity is an epidemic; that we are out on a limb; that we are trashing our soil; enslaving mammals in a sick way; and patting ourselves on the back over how smart it all is.

Hold on. I think this is a total non-sequitur and b.s. claim, that organic foods will make you slimmer.

You know, there's a much simpler explanation for why so many people are fat... they eat too much food and don't get enough exercise. Part of this has to do with the size of portions served in restaurants, which have gotten pretty big in recent years. Solution: don't eat as much. Duh!

Case in point: me. I don't eat organic foods, but I've lost 30 pounds over the last few years (and kept it off) simply because I now eat less and exercise more.

Weight loss is pretty simple. It all boils down, in the end, to conservation of energy... calories in vs. calories out.

[pgwenthold]

You know, there's a much simpler explanation for why so many people are fat... they eat too much food and don't get enough exercise. Part of this has to do with the size of portions served in restaurants, which have gotten pretty big in recent years. .

Which has happened because food is so cheap that it doesn't cost much to increase portion sizes.

See, if it was all organic, food would be so much more scarce, and therefore be more expensive, so portions would have to be smaller, and people wouldn't eat so much.

:)

[MattusMaximus]

Which has happened because food is so cheap that it doesn't cost much to increase portion sizes.

See, if it was all organic, food would be so much more scarce, and therefore be more expensive, so portions would have to be smaller, and people wouldn't eat so much.

:)

Yeah, and a lot more people would be dying of starvation. I wonder how well the whole organic foods movement is doing in countries that can't afford it? Like in sub-Saharan Africa? Oh yeah, it isn't, because those people cannot grow enough food using "organic" methods, and they're dying as a result.

Granted, population growth in sub-Saharan Africa is also another (one of many) contributing factor, but that's for another thread.

[~enigma~]

Weight loss is pretty simple. It all boils down, in the end, to conservation of energy... calories in vs. calories out.
Not exactly true but it is a valid simplification. Approaching it from that angle leads toward a low calorie diet and that doesn't account for the metabolism down regulating itself. For example 1 lb. of fat is 3500 calories so eating 500 calories less per day will theoretically lead to a 1 lb. weight loss per week. That is 52 lbs. per year. So if a 208 lb. man stayed on a diet restricting his caloric intake by 500 calories per day for 4 years, he would disappear according to the calories in vs. calories out simplification.

[Yuri Nalyssus]

Thanks for your reply. I'm after non-anecdotal evidence in the true sceptic manner. Asking a farmer what happens when his animals get sick may not result in a truthful answer I suspect.

And how do I differentiate a serious organic farmer from one who is not?
:) I would have spent hours & needed about 500 words to say the same thing - thanks Capsid!

There is a big emotional, sentimental element to food production which is not helpful to rational debate. I definitely agree though that more meat eaters ought to visit farms and slaughterhouses. If there is anything worse than a dyed-in-the-wool dogmatic organic food type-person it's an, "I love chicken curry but I can't stand to see the poor things being killed" type-person.

As for going back to the 'good old days' of farming, the current age doesn't have a monopoly on animal cruelty. There are well defined animal welfare laws nowadays in UK which, by and large, are vigorously enforced. It's a damn shame that all supermarkets have to do to get round the regs and get cheap meat on the shelves is to import it from countries which are less fastidious.

Yuri

[coalesce]

I really have nothing to add except to say this thread is a great example to why I joined this Forum: intelligent discussion backed up by facts.

Thanks!

Michael

[Ziggurat]

You know, there's a much simpler explanation for why so many people are fat... they eat too much food and don't get enough exercise.

Eat less. Move more. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKs0oEIVOck)

[icerat]

One of the "problems" is that there's nothing in organic farming standards per se that you would expect to lead to consistently higher nutritional levels across a variety of plants and farms. About the only thing you might predict is differences in nitrate and phosphorous levels thanks to the difference in fertilizers used, and that's exactly what this meta-study found.

Other mineral content depends upon other issues, such as the soil content, the crop in question, particularly farming techniques, and even which part of the plant we eat. Even if comparing fields of similar say, calcium input, this particularly study is weakened by the fact they could not analyse by foodstuff, so they just did by nutrient. Thus if you have a foodstuff that is normally high in say calcium, and another that is not, they may have cancelled each other out in the analysis.

With things like antioxidants and other phytonutrients you also have a simple issue of genetics. Plants produce many of these substances for much the same reasons we need them - they help protect against disease and damage from predators and the elements. Over decades of "protective" farming a lot of this simply wasn't needed and would predictly bleed out. On the other hand for some substances, and some nutrients, you would expect market forces to select for *increased* nutritional content. I've seen studies for example that show conventionally farmed carrots today have higher beta-carotene than in the past. Why? I suspect it's because we shoppers select for colour when we buy carrots, so we've pressured producers into supplying nice orange carrots - which means higher beta-carotene levels.

By it's nature, conventional farming is likely to drive genetic selection much faster than organic farming, so while organic farming may eventually lead to plants with higher antioxidants overall, it will take decades of breeding and there's few organic farms that have been around that long.

Having said that, in a recent large EU study they actually did controlled field studies, comparing organic farming vs conventional farming and they found there were influences on gene expression as well, and organic farming generally came out well on top of convential farming for nutritional content.(QILF Sub-project 2 -Effects of production methods (http://www.qlif.org/Library/leaflets/folder_2_small.pdf))

[macdoc]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold
Which has happened because food is so cheap that it doesn't cost much to increase portion sizes.

See, if it was all organic, food would be so much more scarce, and therefore be more expensive, so portions would have to be smaller, and people wouldn't eat so much.

Low yield is a myth - fully integrated organic puts out much higher diverse produce for any given area with much lower inputs
It's just not industrialized mono cropping subsidized by EU and US.

[meg]

I am an organic farmer and market gardener, though I'm doing a lot less farming these last couple of years (caretaking ill parents). I still stay active with the community, though. And I do a lot of talks and workshops on organic gardening and farming for our local extension service.

I just have a few comments in reply to a few comments in this thread.

I don't know what the term "organic" means for the purpose of this study. My best understanding of "organic" when I see the label in the supermarket is that it's produced under arbitrary standards defined by the government. Color me not surprised if the label isn't particularly useful.


While going through all the regulations required for certified organic production is indeed sleep inducing, there is a core of three goals that all the regulations, recommendations, and requirements attempt to adhere to.

Organic methods seek to:
Maintain and improve soil health
Conserve biological diversity
Reduce "off farm" inputs

Hopefully, understanding those three goals can help in wading through the various regulations and requirements. These rules may seem "arbitrary" to someone not familiar with the various practises, but I can assure you they are not. Every one of the regulations is studied, trialed, and hotly debated by a number in groups before being incorporated into regulation.



Because it is less efficient, organic farming requires more land, which has obvious negative environmental consequences.

and

That's probably true, and I am very conflicted about it. I hope (but have no evidence for) that on the balance, the better stewardship of non-monoculture organic farmland outweighs the fact that they're displacing some otherwise-wild land.



This is simply not true. While it is true that farms that are in the process of converting their conventional fields over to organic do suffer an initial loss in yield, this is temporary. Usually within 3-5 years of converting, their yields are comparable to conventionally grown fields.

The Neely-Kinyon Long-Term Agroecological Research (LTAR) Site, at Iowa State performs comparisons between organic and conventional crops every year. (As well as a whole lot of other research) You can find the reports here:
http://www.ag.iastate.edu/farms/reports08.php

You can see for yourself, that while conventional systems may "win" some years, organic systems "win" in other years, for example:

Results 2007
While the 2007 season was extremely dry mid-season, with a low rainfall in June and early July, a 10-year high yield was obtained in the organic C-S-O/A-A rotation, where yields averaged 209 bushes/acre. Conventional C-S corn yields averaged bushesl/acre and soybean yields averaged 61 bushels/acre. The organic C-S-O/A-A corn yield at 191 bushesl/acre was equivalent to the conventional C-S corn yield. The organic C-S-O/A soybean yield at 65 bushels/acre were greater than the other rotations, but the other organic soybean yields were also excellent, averaging 56 bushels/acre.


Results 2008
[snipped long discussion of weather challenges in 2008 resulting in higher weed problems]..As a result of low levels of N and poor weed management, organic corn yields averaged 177 bushels/acre compared with 202 bushels/acre in conventional plots. There was no difference between conventional corn yield and the organic yield of 184 bushels/acre in the 4-year rotation, however.


And as more resources are being put into research and development for organic production every year, we are developing seeds that are more suitable to organic production, and can even outperform their conventionally grown counterparts, for instance:

Organic Corn: Test Shows How Well It Can Yield in Ohio
http://extension.osu.edu/~news/story.php?id=3547


Now there is a growing local food movement, which is great for those of us who want good, local stuff, but would rather our farmers use chemical fertilizers than spread feces on our food.


Just because a farm may be organic does not mean automatically that it uses manures as fertilizer. One of the main goals of organic farming is reducing the use of "off farm" inputs, so an organic farmer that does not have an animal operation which leaves him with manures for use as fertilizer will minimize his use of manures. Rotating crops with legumes to increase nitrogen in the soil is the more common practice.

Many conventional farms do use manure as fertilizer. ALL farmers try whenever practical to use what they have in abundance, and avoid buying what they don't need. If a conventional farmer has manure as a resource, you can bet he's going to use it. It would be just plain dumb not to.




I agree. What with the assumption that "organic farmers" are using better farming technique?

Anecdotally, I know a couple of organic dairy farmers. The reason they got into organic dairy is because they were unable to properly manage a dairy herd to keep them competitive in conventional means. Is there any reason to think they are any better at organic herd management? Or are they just relying on the fact that they can get paid inflated prices by going organic regardless of their ineptitude?

I know for a fact that the latter is true.

Obviously, I don't know you or the dairy farmers you speak of. Maybe they are indeed inept, in which case I doubt very much they're going to make it in the organic dairy industry either. If by chance, though, you are making an assumption that the only dairy farmers who can't compete with large dairy operations are inept dairy farmers, I can assure you that is very, very wrong. It's much akin to saying that the hardware stores that go out of business when Home Depot moves in are inept hardware stores. Or that only inept booksellers have gone out of business because of Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and Borders.


Interesting - I saw the news article and assumed that the claim of no nutritional difference included any effects of pesticides. I know there are many people who prefer to buy organic because of the pesticides that could be on non-organic, but I don't know of anyone who thinks that organic is somehow different in relation to nutrient content.

This study will be dismissed by the organic promoters, and rightly so. I don't think there's any human health effect of tiny pesticide residues on non-organic foods, but if this study didn't even address that issue, it completely missed the point.

I don't have any argument with what you're saying here. I'd just like to add that there are many reasons to be concerned about pesticides besides the health effects on humans of eating the tiny residues on fresh produce. Pesticides can affect soil microbe health, bird, bee or other wildlife populations. It can seep into water sources. It can unintentionally affect/cause other agricultural problems. For example, there is a certain chemical (Triadimefon) which is commonly used in household as well as agricultural use fungicides. This chemical is toxic to the aphid parasitoid wasp, Lysiphlebus testaceipes. So, the homeowner that uses triademifon to control fungi on his turfgrass may unintentionally be making his roses more susceptible to aphid infestation. Or the farmer that sprays triademifon for wheat rust on one field may unintentionally be exacerbating the aphid problem on the soybeans in the field next door.

I'd also like to point out that the people that misuse pesticides the most are homeowners. While it's true that sometimes a farmer's spraytank can leak, or an accidental spill can happen, these are pretty rare events. Homeowners, however, more often than not, don't read the labels, don't apply it properly, and they don't dispose of pesticides properly. One of the biggest reasons some pesticides make it into the water supply is people just pour them down the drain, flush them down the toilet, or dump them on the driveway so they run down into the stormwater drain.

I am happy to be able to say that in the last few years Extension Services all over the country have started actively promoting "least toxic" and organic alternatives to conventional pesticides to homeowners and farmers alike, and that conventional farmers all over the country are beginning to adopt some of the integrated pest management strategies that were developed by organic farming/gardening practitioners and researchers. They are doing this not because organic methods are a "marketing strategy", or because they intend to transition to organic farming, - they don't. They're doing it because these methods work, are less expensive, and are less damaging to the environment.

My two cents.
Meg

[The Central Scrutinizer]

They're right. I've never heard an organic food proponent claim it was healthier.

I have. Tons of times. Of course, they could never explain why it would be healthier.


ETA: looks like Roger beat me to it.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

My main concerns with industrial farms are:
Pesticide residue, which I'm worried about because we have no idea what the long-term effects are.
Actually we do. It's not like pesticides were invented yesterday. We have 50+ years of data. If they were as bad for us as the organotards claim, we'd have bodies stacked 10 feet high on our sidewalks.

I've had people make the claim that all these "chemicals" in food, water, vaccines, etc are "killing us". Next time someone makes that claim, ask them this question - "So why does our life expectancy keep increasing?". Stand back and watch their head explode.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I don't think you should equate organic with small farm (or with locally grown). These are entirely separate issues.

Exactly. While most "organic" food proponents would like to believe that their "organic" head of lettuce was lovingly raised and cared for by hippie farmer Dan, the reality is that it, like most "organic" produce, came from a giant, corporate farm. Which is the great danger in this idiotic movement - a farmer can sell a head of lettuce for $1.00, of which $50 cents is the cost of pesticides and fertilizer, or he can spend $0 on peticides and ferilizer, and sell the now "oragnic" head of lettuce to people with more money than brains for $2.00. Which do you think they will choose? Pretty soon, "organic" will be all that is available. Which might be fine for us, being a rich nation, but what about the poor guy in Africa who just wants a basket of wheat? And growing less food on more ground harly seems like a sensible path to solving world hunger.

[meg]

Actually we do. It's not like pesticides were invented yesterday. We have 50+ years of data. If they were as bad for us as the organotards claim, we'd have bodies stacked 10 feet high on our sidewalks.

I've had people make the claim that all these "chemicals" in food, water, vaccines, etc are "killing us". Next time someone makes that claim, ask them this question - "So why does our life expectancy keep increasing?". Stand back and watch their head explode.

Actually, our life expectancy has been declining.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/aug/13/usa.ewenmacaskill

[icerat]

I've had people make the claim that all these "chemicals" in food, water, vaccines, etc are "killing us". Next time someone makes that claim, ask them this question - "So why does our life expectancy keep increasing?". Stand back and watch their head explode.

That's a bit of a red herring, even if true (depends on the country). These things could easily be killing us, but statistically they're overcome by improvements in, for example, infant mortality or post-cardiac arrest care.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

It's hard to argue that organic produce that's harvested by machine, packed in plastic in an inert gas and flown in a jet across a continent is more environmentally friendly than vegetables grown 20 miles away with a small quantity of pesticides.

Not so fast. Which is more environmentally friendly - a tractor trailer which can bring 1000 bushels of corn from one large farm 100 miles away, or 100 pickup trucks which can only carry 10 bushels each from "organic" farms 10 miles away?

[Ziggurat]

This is simply not true. While it is true that farms that are in the process of converting their conventional fields over to organic do suffer an initial loss in yield, this is temporary. Usually within 3-5 years of converting, their yields are comparable to conventionally grown fields.

As far as I can tell, you're comparing apples and oranges. The crops being compared aren't on the same rotation. What would happen if you used non-organic methods (ie, artificial fertilizers and pesticides) on the same crop rotation? Furthermore, yields within one year aren't what matter if you're not growing that crop every year. If you're growing less years, how do your overall yields compare?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Actually, our life expectancy has been declining.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/aug/13/usa.ewenmacaskill

That is not what that article says.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

That's a bit of a red herring, even if true (depends on the country). These things could easily be killing us, but statistically they're overcome by improvements in, for example, infant mortality or post-cardiac arrest care.

Potentially true, but highly unlikely.

What's funny, is that the last guy who went on the anti-chemical rant (he doesn't eat anything containing chemicals. Umm...yeah) attributed our increased life expectancy to modern medicines. I asked him what those medicines were where made out of. His head exploded for a second time.

[icerat]

Potentially true, but highly unlikely.

Not at all. Even over just the last 30 years, life expectancy at birth has increased at twice the rate as life expectancy at 65, even more so for men.

[esquel]

I'm afraid I'm not a big proponent of organic vs. nonorganic food production. Both sides can cite studies that prove their products are superior, and both sides are guilty of cherry-picking facts -- the balance swings back and forth about who is guiltier at any given time. I lean a bit more towards nonorganic, just because I personally feel that there is a high woo component of the organic industry, and I'm not willing to pay more for foods where I can't perceive an extra benefit.

I live in Hawaii, and most of our non-tropical fruits have to be shipped in. I've eaten both organically produced fruit and commercially produced, and have to say I don't note a substantial taste difference. Locally grown veggies, OTOH, taste better because they don't spend as long in transit and are fresher. That's my purely subjective take on the matter.

[!Kaggen]

Yeah, and a lot more people would be dying of starvation. I wonder how well the whole organic foods movement is doing in countries that can't afford it? Like in sub-Saharan Africa? Oh yeah, it isn't, because those people cannot grow enough food using "organic" methods, and they're dying as a result.

Granted, population growth in sub-Saharan Africa is also another (one of many) contributing factor, but that's for another thread.

Well as a resident of Sub-Saharan Africa I couldn't disagree more.
Currently in South Africa rural communities, and no not the big white owned factory farmers that produce the GMO food your talking about to feed the middleclass living in South African cities with MacDonalds (I mean officially "feeding the world") or the handful of hippie's that have moved out of the *****. The real rural communities, "the working class" paraphrasing good old Marx. They have stopped planting food were they live because they get money from the state per child they have. Why plant food when you get money for having children.
Sex or work? I know what I would choose.

And you blame "organic" farming methods?

[Rolfe]

I guess I've just got fed up posting the same thing, with the same or increasing numbers of examples. Like the "free range organic" hens that were eating each other because they were so stressed. Oh but they were laying really well! Did anyone actually read the post I copied over, with the example of the young sheep dying slowly and painfully of parasite infestation?

It's not about free range versus intensive. It's about these stupid, Luddite, anti-science and antivax idiots that have suckered people into believing that "organic" means something.

I think the US needs to get its house in order. If the only way you can buy produce from livestock farmed in high welfare systems is also to support homoeopathy and antivax, then you have serious need of more high welfare, conventional holdings.

Round here, there's no difference. Sheep run free on the hill. Beef cattle run free on the hill, with their calves at foot, until the calves are so big they have to kneel down to suck! The only difference is that the "organic" ones are deprived of safe, effective prophylactic and therapeutic medicines.

I know it's not like this everywhere. Which is why it's good that all meat is labelled with its country of origin. (I know some of the labelling can be deceptive but you just have to look closely.) I NEVER buy organic, the idea sickens me, and I always look for Scottish lamb and beef, and outdoor pork.

I was at the butcher today. Member of QMS. Very high welfare standards. I know where the slaughterhouse is and I know where the animals come from. (I also know that when another butcher found a broken leg in a pig carcass from that slaughterhouse, there was a huge fuss and enquiries and so on.) And I know that the proper statutory withdrawal periods have been observed for any medication given. That's all that's needed. Allowing animals to become pest-ridden because of some irrational fear of "chemicals" is bad medicine.

Rolfe.

[icerat]

I agree with a lot of what you're saying. In the US in particular "organic" doesn't really mean much, and even if it did mean something, organic stuff shipped long distances isn't good for the food quality or the environment. I personally buy organic when I can and when it's reasonably priced. Much of the time I don't think it makes any real difference except for one - economic - the more people that do so, then the more mainstream and properly "controlled" it will become and then I believe we'll start seeing organic food being consistently better in quality and price.

[!Kaggen]

By it's nature, conventional farming is likely to drive genetic selection much faster than organic farming, so while organic farming may eventually lead to plants with higher antioxidants overall, it will take decades of breeding and there's few organic farms that have been around that long.
/snip/



Interesting that you say this.
There are common micro-bial consortiums, specific surrounding Rhodobacteria, which are probable the best living groups at producing anti-oxidants.They exchange and use each others waste products to produce them. They need pre-cursors from each other. Like a car factory with different suppliers to produce one car. Perhaps these consortium's developed during the Oxygen Catastrophe to overcome the high oxygen environments.
They are however the oldest living ecological communities.
Therefore it makes sense to find that they occur just about everywhere, they are ubiquitous. The Japanese have found that they are even found within plant cells. They have also found that these consortium's are much more commonly found in plants that have been grown using certain agricultural techniques. They move from the soil into the plant if cultured organic matter is added to the soil. The fact is that they contribute much more anti-oxidants in quantity and variety to you than a carrot will ever be breed to do, since they continue living and producing anti-oxidants in your digestive tract.
Go figure how to genetically engineer a community of bacteria into a carrot.
The Japanese have had the solution for almost 20 years now.
Its not that we don't know, its that we don't listen.

[icerat]

Interesting. Have you got any good links to read up on these? The importance of our symbiotic intestinal flora in human nutrition has started to get some airplay recently, but this is the first I heard of this example.

If I recall correctly I think I read recently that infant colic may be related to particular intestinal bacteria, and they may also play a role in some obesity.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I lean a bit more towards nonorganic, just because I personally feel that there is a high woo component of the organic industry, and I'm not willing to pay more for foods where I can't perceive an extra benefit.

My experience tells me that the group that meets at the intersection of "organic" food, homeopathy, and feng shui is quite large.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

It's not about free range versus intensive. It's about these stupid, Luddite, anti-science and antivax idiots that have suckered people into believing that "organic" means something.

Bingo, bingo, bingo. You nailed it. That's what it really comes down to, isn't it.

These are the Luddites of our era.

[!Kaggen]

My experience tells me that the group that meets at the intersection of "organic" food, homeopathy, and feng shui is quite large.

Yes you are right herd mentality is very common in organic farming.
But please do yourself a favour, don't through the baby out with the bathwater.

[!Kaggen]

Bingo, bingo, bingo. You nailed it. That's what it really comes down to, isn't it.

These are the Luddites of our era.

keep in mind the dilettante

[MattusMaximus]

Actually, our life expectancy has been declining.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/aug/13/usa.ewenmacaskill

Non-sequitir. That article is a criticism of the U.S. health care system, not about organic vs. non-organic foods. Talk about comparing apples to oranges :rolleyes:

[MattusMaximus]

Well as a resident of Sub-Saharan Africa I couldn't disagree more.
Currently in South Africa rural communities, and no not the big white owned factory farmers that produce the GMO food your talking about to feed the middleclass living in South African cities with MacDonalds (I mean officially "feeding the world") or the handful of hippie's that have moved out of the *****. The real rural communities, "the working class" paraphrasing good old Marx. They have stopped planting food were they live because they get money from the state per child they have. Why plant food when you get money for having children.
Sex or work? I know what I would choose.

And you blame "organic" farming methods?

Yeah, South Africa is the only country that counts in sub-Saharan Africa :rolleyes:

Ever heard of the famine in Ethiopia?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Non-sequitir. That article is a criticism of the U.S. health care system, not about organic vs. non-organic foods. Talk about comparing apples to oranges :rolleyes:

And it doesn't even say what she claims it says.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Yes you are right herd mentality is very common in organic farming.
But please do yourself a favour, don't through the baby out with the bathwater.

Oh I won't. I already know "organic" food is nonsense. It's not like I'm engaging in guilt by association. Just making an observation.

[ravdin]

Looks like Penn and Teller have good timing- the next episode of Bulls Hit is titled "Organic Food"!

http://www.sho.com/site/video/brightcove/series/title.do?bcpid=14033851001&bclid=30410932001&bctid=30452406001

[ravdin]

Yeah, South Africa is the only country that counts in sub-Saharan Africa :rolleyes:

Ever heard of the famine in Ethiopia?



The cause of the 1980s famine in Ethiopia is not what you might remember from the TV images. The Marxist government under Mengistu collectivized all agriculture, and distributed food as they saw fit rather than allow it to be sold in a free market. There was a deliberate policy of starving segments of the population to bring them under control, similar to Stalin's policy in the 1930s that brought famine to the Ukraine.

After Mengistu's government was overthrown, he was found guilty in abstentia of genocide by an Ethiopian court and he now lives in exile in Zimbabwe.

If you're interested in reading more about the Ethiopian famine, I'd recommend Surrender or Starve (http://www.amazon.com/Surrender-Starve-Travels-Ethiopia-Somalia/dp/1400034523/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1248988836&sr=8-1) by Robert Kaplan.

[rsaavedra]

Recently read Michael Pollan's In Defense of Food (http://www.amazon.com/Defense-Food-Eaters-Manifesto/dp/0143114964/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1248989650&sr=1-1) and liked it a lot.

There was this recent article on MSN, "The Healthiest Foods on Earth (http://health.msn.com/nutrition/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100241585&page=1)," by Jonny Bowden (a PhD and a Certified Nutrition Specialist, or C.N.S., for whatever that's worth.) His article doesn't mention Pollan's book, but basically advocates the same principles. Doesn't mention the words "organic" or "local," but it does promote "whole, real, unprocessed foods."

[Number Six]

One aspect of "buying local" that I've never heard addressed is that doing so systematically eliminates 99% (the number is just a guess) of the competition right from the start. If you can buy from 100 sources and you buy from the one that is closest to you just because it's closest to you then you're using one criterion even though many other could be used as well. If you buy local just because it's local then you're ignoring all the other criteria. It seems to me that if large numbers of people did that it would eliminate a lot of competition and introduce inefficiencies.

[tesscaline]

I guess I've just got fed up posting the same thing, with the same or increasing numbers of examples. Like the "free range organic" hens that were eating each other because they were so stressed. Oh but they were laying really well! Did anyone actually read the post I copied over, with the example of the young sheep dying slowly and painfully of parasite infestation?I completely sympathize with you here. I did read your post, and I've heard other horror stories from other people in the veterinary field as well.

It's not about free range versus intensive. It's about these stupid, Luddite, anti-science and antivax idiots that have suckered people into believing that "organic" means something.This is exactly the problem.

I think the US needs to get its house in order. If the only way you can buy produce from livestock farmed in high welfare systems is also to support homoeopathy and antivax, then you have serious need of more high welfare, conventional holdings.Yes, the US needs to get it's house in order. Living here, and being subjected to "organic" this and "organic" that on every single stupid freaking label, with it meaning absolutely nothing is frustrating. You don't have a clue what you're buying, and there's no way to find out unless you actually go and visit the farms/factories/processing centers.

Round here, there's no difference. Sheep run free on the hill. Beef cattle run free on the hill, with their calves at foot, until the calves are so big they have to kneel down to suck! The only difference is that the "organic" ones are deprived of safe, effective prophylactic and therapeutic medicines.

I know it's not like this everywhere. Which is why it's good that all meat is labelled with its country of origin. (I know some of the labelling can be deceptive but you just have to look closely.) I NEVER buy organic, the idea sickens me, and I always look for Scottish lamb and beef, and outdoor pork.

I was at the butcher today. Member of QMS. Very high welfare standards. I know where the slaughterhouse is and I know where the animals come from. (I also know that when another butcher found a broken leg in a pig carcass from that slaughterhouse, there was a huge fuss and enquiries and so on.) And I know that the proper statutory withdrawal periods have been observed for any medication given. That's all that's needed. Allowing animals to become pest-ridden because of some irrational fear of "chemicals" is bad medicine.

Rolfe.This part, about the vaccinations is really the part that angers me (just as it seems to anger you). I refuse to buy organic animal products because of it. I actually have gone so far as to refuse to buy chicken at my otherwise favorite grocery store as the only chicken they stock has a big huge label on every package that brags (BRAGS!) that they deprive their animals of antibiotics. It reads "Absolutely NO antibiotics! EVER!" And every time I see it, I'm sickened. So I don't buy it. Instead, I go to a different store (half way across town) to buy chicken. I've actually been tempted to write an irate letter to the store's corporate office complaining that they don't carry a stock of humanely treated chicken that has actually received proper medical care, but I haven't been entirely sure how to go about wording such a letter.

I wish we had proper butchers in this country (we don't so much anymore) so that I could go to a butcher and have them know exactly what goes on on the farm that they get their stock from. I wish we had a fishmonger for the same reason. I wish the local farmer's market wasn't just on saturday afternoons, so that I could buy guaranteed to be local produce every day. But your average consumer doesn't get those luxuries (and I do consider them luxuries now), instead we're stuck with buying whatever happens to show up in the local grocer's, and who on earth knows where THAT came from, or how it got there, or how it was treated before it got there.

[icerat]

I'm pretty certain that in the EU organic farming does not exclude antibiotics, and indeed farmers are required to use them if the health or welfare of an animal is at risk.

[Eos of the Eons]

The organic food sections at stores scare me. The produce actually even smells gross there.

Well, now that it's not more nutritious, the pro-organics are saying it has less "chemicals" so it's safer. Water is a chemical. Are they making this food dehydrated to get rid of THAT chemical?

Disease ridden is not safer. I don't care if it is plant or animal.

[icerat]

RE EU law -from regulation 834/2007 (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2007:189:0001:0023:EN:PDF) regarding organic farming -

disease shall be treated immediately to avoid suffering
to the animal; chemically synthesised allopathic
veterinary medicinal products including antibiotics
may be used where necessary and under strict
conditions, when the use of phytotherapeutic,
homeopathic and other products is inappropriate. In
particular restrictions with respect to courses of
treatment and withdrawal periods shall be defined;

Gotta love the line re homeopathic products. A bit sad it politically needed to be included, but can anyone tell me for what condition homeopathic products are appropriate?

Dehydration perhaps?

[Eos of the Eons]

Oh. And what about organic pesticides? Yeah. They are somehow NOT chemicals! What an amazing wonder these, um, organic pesticides are. I used to be able find a story about a guy who decided to use organic pesticide on his organic apples. They got burned by the pesticide. The stuff was previously untested, but considered "all natural".

Here is a story on toxic organic food:
http://www.cgfi.org/2003/11/10/organic-farmers-cry-foul-on-toxic-corn-meal-recall/


Britain recalling all six tested brands of organic corn meal. All six contained very high levels of fumonisin, a natural fungal toxin linked to cancer, kidney and liver diseases, and birth defects.
The organic corn meal brands averaged over 9,000 parts per billion, nearly 20 times more fumonisin than allowed by the European safety standard. Twenty UK conventional corn meals were far below the EU limit, averaging a relatively tiny 130 parts per billion.

Natural doesn't mean non-toxic, and neither does organic.

[Rolfe]

The trouble is, if an animal is given an antiibiotic, it becomes non-organic. Hoops have to be jumped through to get it back into the organic certification. It costs the farmer money. Does anyone really think organic farmers are going to be leaping in there with antibiotics at the first sign of a nasty cough?

And a large part of the problem is the prohibition on prophylactic treatment. Preventative medicine in particular against parasites has transformed animal welfare over the last 50 years. Letting young breeding stock die, emaciated and soaked with liquid faeces, because they are riddled with worms, is inexcusable in my book. And I didn't make that up, sadly.

Rolfe.

[icerat]

The trouble is, if an animal is given an antiibiotic, it becomes non-organic. Hoops have to be jumped through to get it back into the organic certification. It costs the farmer money. Does anyone really think organic farmers are going to be leaping in there with antibiotics at the first sign of a nasty cough?

In the EU you're not allowed to sell meat from an animal that has been on antibiotics for a certain number of days after it's stopped. The only difference with organic is the number of days is longer to ensure the antibiotics are out of the system.

And a large part of the problem is the prohibition on prophylactic treatment. Preventative medicine in particular against parasites has transformed animal welfare over the last 50 years. Letting young breeding stock die, emaciated and soaked with liquid faeces, because they are riddled with worms, is inexcusable in my book. And I didn't make that up, sadly.

And it would clearly be against EU organic regulations. Indeed vaccinations and anti-parasitic treatments are allowed under the rules. I'd suggest your report has got more to do with the farmer than the label. In fact, apart from a slight increase in parasitic infections, a 2001 literature review (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T9B-47RRVCH-4&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=946558e1f2ef1170b0f85903b3ef10ff) found organic herds were as healthy or healthier than non-organic herds. Furthermore, researchers are well aware of the issue of parasites and are actively developing non-pharmaceutical techniques to lower infections. Changes in diet appear to be quite promising. (http://ec.europa.eu/research/agriculture/projects/qlrt_2000_01843_en.htm)

[portlandatheist]

I think there are a lot of good things to take into consideration with our food supply:
What is best for the environment and long term soil health and land usage?
What is best for human consumption?
What is best for our food security? etc.
When it comes to these issues, the term "organic" is not useful in my opinion. I would even go so far as saying its worthless.
Organic food may mean a small time ma and pop operation where crops are rotated, cover crops are grown during off season, compost is used, etc all of which is great for the long term health and productivity of the soil. Alternatively, organic food may be made by a large corporations, and use methods that rapidly erode and deteriorate the soil. It also makes little sense to ship rare organic ammonium sulfate all over the earth instead of using manufactured ammonium sulfate made locally, the soil won't know the difference. There is also the myth that organic farmers do not use pesticides, when in fact they can (although I'm sure many do not) use natural pesticides and being "natural" is no guarantee of its efficacy, toxicity, or overall safety. Some organic pesticides are known carcinogens. I highly doubt that actually matters, but the point is made. Likewise, it makes little sense to me ship bat guano on diesel freighters all over the earth to organic farms for nitrogen inputs instead of using natrual gas based nitrogen fertilizers.

I also want to question the idea of "minimal inputs". I'm not sure exactly what this means because generally I agree that as much waste material as possible should be reincorporated into the soil and be somewhat self sufficient, but external inputs do makes sense. Consider Oregon Tillamook cheese: nutritious and calcium rich cheese is constantly being exported from the area the cows graze, some of those minerals that are leaving the area will need to be returned somehow eventually.
Skeptoid recently covered the topic of locally grown food and how that too is not all its hyped up to be. I don't think one can make a blanket statement about locally grown food, sometimes it is way better for the environment and more efficient, sometimes it is not. Skeptoid brings up New Zealand sheep that are raised cheaper and more cheaper than just about any place else due to the climate and clover rich fields whereas a locally grown sheep has a higher carbon footprint due to all the feed the animals need. Its not a black and white issue.
Having rambled on for awhile, I'm attempting to get back to nature myself: I'm raising backyard chickens including meat chickens and growing a substantial garden and picking local berries when in season. I find it rewarding even if it is inefficient and not particularly practical.

[!Kaggen]

Yeah, South Africa is the only country that counts in sub-Saharan Africa :rolleyes:

Ever heard of the famine in Ethiopia?




The cause of the 1980s famine in Ethiopia is not what you might remember from the TV images. The Marxist government under Mengistu collectivized all agriculture, and distributed food as they saw fit rather than allow it to be sold in a free market. There was a deliberate policy of starving segments of the population to bring them under control, similar to Stalin's policy in the 1930s that brought famine to the Ukraine.

After Mengistu's government was overthrown, he was found guilty in abstentia of genocide by an Ethiopian court and he now lives in exile in Zimbabwe.

If you're interested in reading more about the Ethiopian famine, I'd recommend Surrender or Starve (http://www.amazon.com/Surrender-Starve-Travels-Ethiopia-Somalia/dp/1400034523/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1248988836&sr=8-1) by Robert Kaplan.



Dig deeper than the tabloid press and you will find more.
The task of the skeptic, right?

[!Kaggen]

Recently read Michael Pollan's In Defense of Food (http://www.amazon.com/Defense-Food-Eaters-Manifesto/dp/0143114964/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1248989650&sr=1-1) and liked it a lot.

There was this recent article on MSN, "The Healthiest Foods on Earth (http://health.msn.com/nutrition/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100241585&page=1)," by Jonny Bowden (a PhD and a Certified Nutrition Specialist, or C.N.S., for whatever that's worth.) His article doesn't mention Pollan's book, but basically advocates the same principles. Doesn't mention the words "organic" or "local," but it does promote "whole, real, unprocessed foods."

Yes, also try The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals by Pollan.

And watch this documentary about a 3rd generation farmer who become an organic farmer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqP1SC5Tr7U

[!Kaggen]

Interesting. Have you got any good links to read up on these? The importance of our symbiotic intestinal flora in human nutrition has started to get some airplay recently, but this is the first I heard of this example.

If I recall correctly I think I read recently that infant colic may be related to particular intestinal bacteria, and they may also play a role in some obesity.

Japanese research is difficult to find translated to english.
I have an american friend who did his M.Sc. in Japan on the subject with the Professor who discovered them. He started a company in Kansas City which producers this consortium. Google SCDworld.com

[!Kaggen]

Oh I won't. I already know "organic" food is nonsense. It's not like I'm engaging in guilt by association. Just making an observation.

I think you hit the nail on the head.
There is no such thing as "organic" food.
However there are methods developed under the label "organic farming" which are well researched and documented to improve soil quality, increase bio-diversity and maintain production levels with less fossil fuel derived fertilizer.

For example:
We know that the ideal soil for growing plants is:
50% Solids
25%Air
25%Water.
How do we know this? Using data and models.
Now, when we look for soils with this ratio what do we find.
They all have one common factor.
The microbial biomass and specifically fungal biomass is highest in these soils. These dudes create soil structure through chemical secretions and mechanical support.
So how do we promote these bugs and fungi.
1. No herbicides-fungi don't like herbicides.
2. No tillage- fungi have hypha which grow like plant roots only much much more extensively through soil.
3. Mulch- the sun is anti-microbial
4. Grow perennial foods instead annual foods - tillage eliminated, perennials develop mycorrhizal (type of fungi) associations much more abundantly than perennials. Soil shaded more than not.
5. Composting- way of inoculating soil with microbes and adding organic material which is food for microbes
6. Maintain and monitor soil nutrient ratio's- we know that the ratio of Ca:Mg has a major effect on microbial populations specifically fungi.
7. Reduce phosphate fertilization- mycorrhizal fungi have a mutualistic relationship with 95% of plant species. They provide phosphate and water and the plants provide carbon and nitrogen. Phosphate fertilizers selects for plants with low mycorrhizal associations and reduces mycorrhizal association in the soil.
8. Eliminate fungicides- for obvious reasons
9. Reduce copper use - copper is anti-microbial.
10. Reduce applications of soluble nitrogen, by using slow release nitrogen sources such as compost - soluble nitrogen causes rapid bacterial growth and can lead to acidification of the soil if the calcium levels are low and the soil has a low Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC)
11. Add stable organic matter such as compost which has a high humic/fulvic acid content- these substances select for fungi in the soil environment as they only have the enzymes to breakdown these substances.

There is more.
The point is these methods were all developed by "organic" farmers.
On the other side of the fence this is what happened:
Due to the continuous use of high levels of soluble nitrogen/phosphate fertilizers, herbicide and fungicide use and continuous cropping of annuals half of the year with the rest of the year the soil standing bare. We end up with a soil that looks like this:
85%solid
10%water
5% air
Now if you analyze a plants make-up you will find that what it gets from the soil in terms of nutrients constitutes a fraction of its mass (<10%). Most is hydrogen, oxygen and carbon derived from air and water. This fact and the fact that plants are not supernatural and cannot grow through solids imply one thing only. The plants have reduced surface area to take up nutrients (minerals, nitrogen, potassium and phosphate) and these nutrients have less water in which to become soluble. The result is that we have used all our agricultural "expertise" to breed plants that are short and don't fall over in a breeze and that can live in high concentrations of soluble nutrients and anoxic water. Of course roots are still living organisms and as any high school biology student knows they still need oxygen for respiration. If they do not get it they do not have energy for metabolism and the plant suffers from malnutrition in a soup of nutrients. Sounds familiar? With enough food to feed everyone in the world, malnutrition is still the leading single cause of death worldwide by far. However plant breeders, fertilizer suppliers, herbicide suppliers, fungicide suppliers and grain traders are laughing all the way to the bank and research on solving this simple problem of soil constituent ratio's is relegated to a few "organic" farmers. This we call a "green revolution". I call it dumb.

[!Kaggen]

they deprive their animals of antibiotics. It reads "Absolutely NO antibiotics! EVER!" And every time I see it, I'm sickened. So I don't buy it.

Labeling is labeling and suckers are suckers.
Also those that respond emotionally without adequate knowledge.
Keep in mind prophylactic use of anti-biotic's is counter-productive.
You build up resistance.
They should be used when animals have sicknesses caused by bacteria using appropriate dosages.
Using small amounts of them to increase growth rates in perfectly healthy chickens smacks of incomplete science sponsored by invested interest.

[tesscaline]

Labeling is labeling and suckers are suckers.
Also those that respond emotionally without adequate knowledge.
Keep in mind prophylactic use of anti-biotic's is counter-productive.
You build up resistance.
They should be used when animals have sicknesses caused by bacteria using appropriate dosages.
Using small amounts of them to increase growth rates in perfectly healthy chickens smacks of incomplete science sponsored by invested interest.Excuse me? Who said anything about prophylactic use of antibiotics (note there is no hyphen in that word, and there is also no apostrophe)? I certainly didn't.

Advertising that you don't provide medical care to your sick animals (which is, to me, what it means when someone brags about NEVER using antibiotics) is disgusting, and animal cruelty pure and simple.

[!Kaggen]

The trouble is, if an animal is given an antiibiotic, it becomes non-organic. Hoops have to be jumped through to get it back into the organic certification. It costs the farmer money. Does anyone really think organic farmers are going to be leaping in there with antibiotics at the first sign of a nasty cough?

And a large part of the problem is the prohibition on prophylactic treatment. Preventative medicine in particular against parasites has transformed animal welfare over the last 50 years. Letting young breeding stock die, emaciated and soaked with liquid faeces, because they are riddled with worms, is inexcusable in my book. And I didn't make that up, sadly.

Rolfe.

I see you are wisely avoiding talking about the prophylactic use of low dose antibiotics which is standard practice in conventional factory farming.
And as far as worms go this is easily solved with appropriate breeding, stocking density, faeces management, pasture management, monitoring and isolation of sick animals and prophylactic use of pro biotics. Prophylatic de-wormers are an excuse to avoid using these management intensive methods. Most conventional farming was developed to reduce the need for management by substituting inputs. However this is not sustainable and creates farmers who are no better than robots.

[Rolfe]

I'm not talking about what is standard practice in America, because I don't live in America.

And as far as worms go this is easily solved with appropriate breeding, stocking density, faeces management, pasture management, monitoring and isolation of sick animals and prophylactic use of pro biotics.


Oh, if only that were true! Normal farms minimise the need for anthelmintic use with the more rational of these approaches. If they "easily solved" the problem, everybody would be ecstatic. But they don't.

One problem is that every time someone decides to to an actual study into the daily observations of vets who deal with these animals that an unacceptable proportion of organic animals are ill-thriven, undersized and parasite-ridden, they have to find farms to co-operate in the study. And the sort of farms that co-operate with studies like that are not the sort of farms that have the problems.

Nobody who works where I do, and sees the sort of specimens that come in with the "organic" tag, will touch organic meat. Indeed, one of my colleagues worked in meat inspection in her previous job, and she has a rant now and again about the slaughterhouse policy. Apparently the rules say the organic animals have to go first, so as not to be contaminated by conventional animals having been processed ahead of them. "It's disgusting! They're riddled with organisms! They should be kept till last so as not to contaminate the healthy convntional animals!"

Idealism and rose-coloured glasses are all very well, but when you work in pathology you see what really happens (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=136556).

Roolfe.

[Darat]

...snip...

Oh, if only that were true! Normal farms minimise the need for anthelmintic use with the more rational of these approaches. If they "easily solved" the problem, everybody would be ecstatic. But they don't.

...snip...

All the farmers I know (and have known) are the epitome of "ruthless capitalist", if there was a more efficient method of controlling parasites than a wormer they would be using that; they would not spend a penny on a single dose of unnecessary wormer!

[!Kaggen]

I'm not talking about what is standard practice in America, because I don't live in America.




Oh, if only that were true! Normal farms minimise the need for anthelmintic use with the more rational of these approaches. If they "easily solved" the problem, everybody would be ecstatic. But they don't.

One problem is that every time someone decides to to an actual study into the daily observations of vets who deal with these animals that an unacceptable proportion of organic animals are ill-thriven, undersized and parasite-ridden, they have to find farms to co-operate in the study. And the sort of farms that co-operate with studies like that are not the sort of farms that have the problems.

Nobody who works where I do, and sees the sort of specimens that come in with the "organic" tag, will touch organic meat. Indeed, one of my colleagues worked in meat inspection in her previous job, and she has a rant now and again about the slaughterhouse policy. Apparently the rules say the organic animals have to go first, so as not to be contaminated by conventional animals having been processed ahead of them. "It's disgusting! They're riddled with organisms! They should be kept till last so as not to contaminate the healthy convntional animals!"

Idealism and rose-coloured glasses are all very well, but when you work in pathology you see what really happens (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=136556).

Roolfe.

I am not saying that you are wrong from your experience, your reaction is perfectly understandable.
What I am saying is that you, these organic farmers and the conventional ones that use prophylactic de-wormers obviously do not know everything about controlling worms. It is outside your experience so far.
Time to start learning then;)

[!Kaggen]

All the farmers I know (and have known) are the epitome of "ruthless capitalist", if there was a more efficient method of controlling parasites than a wormer they would be using that; they would not spend a penny on a single dose of unnecessary wormer!

Are you referring to prophylactic de-wormers?
Obviously a de-wormer works when an animal has worms.
The idea is prevention without prophylactic de-wormers and cure with standard de-wormers.
What so woo about that?
Do you want everyone to live in a hospital in case they got sick?

[Darat]

Your post is a complete non-sequitur so I haven't got a clue what sort of answer you are looking for.

[!Kaggen]

Excuse me? Who said anything about prophylactic use of antibiotics (note there is no hyphen in that word, and there is also no apostrophe)? I certainly didn't.

Advertising that you don't provide medical care to your sick animals (which is, to me, what it means when someone brags about NEVER using antibiotics) is disgusting, and animal cruelty pure and simple.
So if milk says fat-free, it means that milk comes out of cow fat-free?
If a farmer has healthy animals he is allowed to say so.
Whether using the antibiotic scare tactics is appropriate is another matter. I definitely do not agree with any scare tactics.
If he does not need to use anti-biotics because his animals are not sick then he should say his animals never get sick rather than he does not use anti-biotics.
So referring to my previous email.
Labelling and advertising in general uses scare tactics as a matter of course.
Its up to us as individuals to read between the lines.
In other words asking the farmer for veterinary proof that his animals never get sick enough to need antibiotics is far more constructive than ranting on about a label.

[Kuko 4000]

Nobody who works where I do, and sees the sort of specimens that come in with the "organic" tag, will touch organic meat.



Just out of interest, in how many organic farms have you been where the overall care for (or the condition of) their animals has been below the standards that you would find reasonable / acceptable? Also how does this compare to the non-organic farms where you've been? And I'm sorry, I'm not sure where you're working, Scotland?

I guess it's time for another personal experience:

I worked almost 10 years in a place that sold many organic products, organic was pretty much the main draw. During that time I've observed that, at least here in southern Finland, a big portion of the people buying organic foods from more or less specialist stores perceive organic products to be healthier for themselves and better for the environment than conventional foods / products. I actually needed to calm customers down on a daily basis when they were so scared of food additives, anti-perspirants, etc.

In addition, a significant portion of the regular customers were pro-homeopathy (very striking correlation) and into all kinds of alternative medicines and irrational beliefs, plus of course, anti-science (without really understanding how science works on a basic level).

[richardm]

I was converted when I went to work on a "bio-dynamic" farm 16 years ago.
<snip>
After 4 months on the Bio-dynamic farm I stopped taken the Indomethacin and in the last 14 years ago have only occasional needed to take Indomethacin.

<snip>
Using the model they found that soils farmed "bio-dynamically" would outproduce their conventional counterparts by up to 100%. What does this mean, conventional farming methods are counterproductive.

BioDynamic eh? Let's have a shufti (http://www.biodynamic.org.uk/demeter/standards.html) at what that entails...

fertilise mainly with cow poo, excellent; sensible choice of crops to avoid pests, good, good; mixed planting and crop rotation with break crops, lovely; set up your growing areas to minimise the amount of heating they need, that's wise these days; it all sounds quite reasonable reall-hang on what's this?


Spiritual scientific knowledge indicates that components of mineral plant and animal origin can be metamorphosed by the effects of cosmic/earthly influences during the course of the year into preparations imbued with forces

:eye-poppi

Well, perhaps that's just a lyrical flourish. I expect these preparations are quite sensible when you find out what's invol- erm wait a moment


3. The materials required for the production of preparations
The following materials are used in the production of the biodynamic preparations and the estimated quantities of organ material required per acre:

Preparation|Material|Animal Organ|Quantity/year
Horn Manure|Cow manure|Cow Horn|1 Horn/hectare
Horn Silica| Quartz meal| Cow Horn 1|Horn/25 hectares
Camomile|Flowers| Intestine| 30cm/100 hectares
Oak Bark|Bark|Skull|1 Skull/300 hectares
Dandelion|Flowers|Peritoneum |30x30cm/100 hectares
Yarrow|Flowers|Stag's bladder|1 bladder/350 hectares

Build a better world with homeopathic stag bladders, folks. :nope: And no, I don't know why they refer to material per acre then list it per hectare.

[icerat]

I reiterate for those in the EU - antibiotics are not only allowed for organic animal farming they are required if not using them harms the health and welfare of the animal. Anyone with "worm riddled" animals is breaking the law and not following organic guidelines.

[!Kaggen]

Your post is a complete non-sequitur so I haven't got a clue what sort of answer you are looking for.

Your right, I need a break from this discussion and go do some farming to clear my head for all this logic :confused:

[!Kaggen]

BioDynamic eh? Let's have a shufti (http://www.biodynamic.org.uk/demeter/standards.html) at what that entails...

fertilise mainly with cow poo, excellent; sensible choice of crops to avoid pests, good, good; mixed planting and crop rotation with break crops, lovely; set up your growing areas to minimise the amount of heating they need, that's wise these days; it all sounds quite reasonable reall-hang on what's this?



:eye-poppi

Well, perhaps that's just a lyrical flourish. I expect these preparations are quite sensible when you find out what's invol- erm wait a moment



Build a better world with homeopathic stag bladders, folks. :nope: And no, I don't know why they refer to material per acre then list it per hectare.

At least someones doing their homework. 5/10
Now go find out some more besides, the regulations.

[richardm]

At least someones doing their homework. 5/10
Now go find out some more besides, the regulations.

Much of what they say is straightforward old fashioned farming, with bits of outrageous woo tacked on to make it sound like more than it is.

[roger]

Observation: it's pretty hard to win with these guys. First, we get criticized for looking at a study. Then, criticized for not looking at enough studies. Then, we are using too much logic. Then, we are not listening to their logic. Then, we don't have field experience. Then, well, your bona fide field experience is not relevant. Ignoring the actual data being presented for a moment, it's a pretty unsettling argument technique.

Meanwhile, where is the back up data for the proponents. Where is the evidence that strewing e-coli ladden cow **** all over the environment is good? That the artificially made fertilizers is bad? That the 'natural' pesticides used by organic farmers is good, that the 'chemical' pesticides used by nonorganic farmers is bad? etc. That the yield of organic is possible to feed the worlds population.

I say this not as someone who relishes an internet argument (I mostly find them boring), but as someone who goes to the grocery store and avoid the organic section at all costs. I do go to the local farmers markets around here now and again because the selection is pretty nice, but that is it.

So, convince me and others. Lay out the evidence. I'm just not seeing it. So far as I am aware modern pesticides are very safe, and used in very small amounts. Cow ****** Not so much.

I guess you could argue that it's my job to go do my homework, but I'm telling you I'm not gonna. Life is limited. The science seems to be in, I can't afford paying $2.5 for a single avacado, taste tests show nonorganics taste better, this study shows no health difference, etc. It looks like it comes down to soil chemistry? Are we really destroying our soil? I don't know. I welcome input, not arguments.

[Rolfe]

I am not saying that you are wrong from your experience, your reaction is perfectly understandable.
What I am saying is that you, these organic farmers and the conventional ones that use prophylactic de-wormers obviously do not know everything about controlling worms. It is outside your experience so far.
Time to start learning then;)


:hb:

Granny is quite capable of sucking her own eggs, thank you. (http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/diseases/control/parasite_control.htm)

I'm sorry, I'm fresh out of patience with ignorant woo this week. Blame Marduk.

Rolfe.

[pgwenthold]

:hb:

Granny is quite capable of sucking her own eggs, thank you. (http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/diseases/control/parasite_control.htm)

I'm sorry, I'm fresh out of patience with ignorant woo this week. Blame Marduk.

Rolfe.

But there it is. Experts? What do they know?

Jeez, Rolfe, just because you are a veterinary pathologist, what the heck do YOU know about parasite control in farm animals?

The Organic Farmers, OTOH, have special insight that you are blind to.

They are worse than horse owners!

It's the same old woo crap. Who do YOU trust when it comes to vaccines? The CDC? Your pediatricians? Or Jenny McCarthy?

[roger]

follow on to my last post: I am serious about seeking info. I googled "organic food soil composition". One of the first relevant hits was MOFGA - the Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association. Good, except this was a link I gave earlier for a site posting woo - claims that organics are healthier and more nutritious. Still, lets give it a fair shake. I have no doubt I have some fact wrong in my post above, and it would be unfair for somebody to dismiss everything I wrote for one wrong fact, though it would be fair to use a bit more scrutiny.
http://www.mofga.org/tabid/166/Default.aspx

So we have claims that flavor is an important result. Except, well, nonorganics test better in blind tests.

We have a claim that the plant will be healthier and more nutritious. Except scientific studies say otherwise.

We have a claim that synthetic pesticides are dangerous. Yet modern pesticides are extremely well studied, and pose little risk. OTOH, things like cow manure have very well known and documented health risks, and are used in far greater quantities than the synthetics.

We have a claim that nonorganic practices are cheaper because the real costs are being passed on to you in the form of organic damage. But, look at the little table, and the claim is that organic farmers buy cheap fertilizer, and that industrial farms buy the most expensive forms available. Contradiction. Not to mention why would a farm buy the most expensive form of an ingredient available.

Then we look at what is left out. Sure, shipping food sounds bad for the environment. But in what form is this food shipped? It's not analyzed. I find myself looking at all the little, poorly maintained trucks at the farmers market and wonder at the pollution they generate getting to market from 50miles away, vs trains, large semi's, container ships transporting far larger quantities at far lower costs (and polution) per mile. My gut says it more or less works out to be a wash. There is also no analysis on shipping raw forms of fertilizer vs the 'expensive' processed forms.

On the other hand, this website (http://www.ota.com/organic/benefits/soil.html) seems somewhat well sourced, using long term studies (which helps remove the spurious effects of weather), which seems to indicate that properly done organic farming builds the soil better than conventional no-till farming. However, some of the sources seem quite dubious, such as a couple of magazines. Also, a visit to Wikipedia (I know, I know, but that is the class of knowledge I am operating in right now) cites studies that directly contradict the studies referenced above. My impression is that the science is not in yet on this issue, and it's distressing to see a website only mention the studies that support their position. Mention the studies that showed greater organic yield, don't mention the ones that showed greater nonorganic yields. Etc.


Anyway, to my mind, this (soil health) is where the value of organic farming question seems to hinge.

In the end, the whole topic is quite annoying. Study the issue, sure! Try it? Of course! But to claim the science is in, when it isn't, is quite annoying. To avoid propholaytic medicine, encourage homeopathic medicines, magical fertilizer ingredients, is outrageous. It gives off the distinct stench of woo, no different than the people pushing 'natural' medicines over the 'processed' allopathic medicines. Nonetheless, I await the science in the matter, not the emotions and scare tactics.

[Eos of the Eons]

Nonetheless, I await the science in the matter, not the emotions and scare tactics.

Pfft. This will never stop. It's the only way to sell organic food and alternative medicine. As long as they are being marketed, then expect anecdotes, emotions, and the false claims that everything else will kill you because everything else is "toxic, poisonous, not as nutritious, etc.".

[!Kaggen]

I do go to the local farmers markets around here now and again because the selection is pretty nice, but that is it.

The only relevant part of your post.

[!Kaggen]

:hb:

Granny is quite capable of sucking her own eggs, thank you. (http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/diseases/control/parasite_control.htm)

I'm sorry, I'm fresh out of patience with ignorant woo this week. Blame Marduk.

Rolfe.

woo is ignorance, so lack of patience with woo is a non sequitar
however lack of patience with an ignorant scientist is meaningful

[Aepervius]

woo is ignorance, so lack of patience with woo is a non sequitar
however lack of patience with an ignorant scientist is meaningful

Now this is what I would call a non sequitur...

badscience and the FSA organic food report (http://www.badscience.net/2009/08/check-me-out-i-bought-some-posh-chocolate-im-political/)

Funnily some of the goal moving or misunderstanding he report I sawe in this thread ;).

[!Kaggen]

Some reading to start with:

http://www.fibl.org/en/homepage.html

www.livablefutureblog.com/pdf/Putting_Meat_on_Table_FULL.pdf

response from soil association to OP link report
http://www.soilassociation.org/Whyorganic/Health/tabid/59/Default.aspx

The organic-center response to OP link report
http://www.organic-center.org/science.nutri.php?action=view&report_id=157

Look at his research papers
http://css.wsu.edu/people/faculty/soils/Reganold.htm

http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/

http://emrojapan.com/

Kyusei Nature Farming Conference Proceedings (http://www.emamerica.com/effective-microorganism-products/books/226-research-books/363-kyusei-nature-farm-conferences)

Nature Farming and Microbial Applications (http://www.amazon.com/N-Ature-Farming-Microbial-Applications/dp/1560220821/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1249107523&sr=8-8)

http://www.biodynamic.org.nz/researchreport_summary.html

www.michaelfieldsaginst.org/education/biodynamic_longterm.pdf

http://www.springerlink.com/content/c5ckd6alur3ltc0x/

Organic Farming: An International History (http://www.amazon.com/Organic-Farming-International-W-Lockeretz/dp/085199833X/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1249108545&sr=8-5)

[!Kaggen]

Now this is what I would call a non sequitur...

badscience and the FSA organic food report (http://www.badscience.net/2009/08/check-me-out-i-bought-some-posh-chocolate-im-political/)

Funnily some of the goal moving or misunderstanding he report I sawe in this thread ;).

You are mistaken.
I have been involved long enough with the organic movement (15 yrs) to know the woo from the reality.
"Organic/Biodynamic" people find that they do not like to spend any time with me as I quickly find the woo in their thoughts and more importantly on their farms.
I actually got thrown off the Biodynamic farm I was working on for questioning the "Biodynamic" owner.
You obviously are not paying attention to my posts, but looking for ghosts.
Why do you think I am on this forum and not an "organic/biodynamic" forum with my "buddies".
I am not a blind supporter of any system in farming.
I am also not a blind supporter of science. I question everything, especially the motives.
However due to the general ignorance on the subject, especially within the scientific community, its best to do your own reading, thinking and testing.
I do not ignore anything. I read it with an open mind. Then I think long and hard about it. Then I test it on my farm. As I said my farm is an experimental one and I have found techniques practice in Japan to be the most useful so far. However an understanding of all the other methods, including conventional is essential in order to do experiments.

As a newcomer who probably does not farm I suggest you come with an open, but critical mind. Do your own thinking and better still testing.

[Aepervius]

As a newcomer who probably does not farm I suggest you come with an open, but critical mind. Do your own thinking and better still testing.

Although I stopped helping my parents for some time, my parents *DO* still farm. Grow everything from legumes to wheats to an orchad of various fruit trees.

And the bottom line is that IMHO Ben Goldacre is spot on.

As for paying attention to your post, I do indeed. And I quite think that the post I was answering to speak for itself.

I find your post post above even more... Interresting.


However due to the general ignorance on the subject, especially within the scientific community, its best to do your own reading, thinking and testing.

[quarky]

Michelle Obama's hopes for an organic garden have been dashed, on account of Bill and Hill using sewage sludge on their garden.

Geez, I wonder if it was Bill and Hillary's poo? Imagine trying to get your kids to eat those veggies!

[MattusMaximus]

Now this is what I would call a non sequitur...

badscience and the FSA organic food report (http://www.badscience.net/2009/08/check-me-out-i-bought-some-posh-chocolate-im-political/)

Funnily some of the goal moving or misunderstanding he report I sawe in this thread ;).

Thanks for that link. Very interesting indeed.

[Uncayimmy]

f Sure, shipping food sounds bad for the environment. But in what form is this food shipped? It's not analyzed. I find myself looking at all the little, poorly maintained trucks at the farmers market and wonder at the pollution they generate getting to market from 50miles away, vs trains, large semi's, container ships transporting far larger quantities at far lower costs (and polution) per mile. My gut says it more or less works out to be a wash.

Is it really a wash? How much of that same produce is driven back to the farm at the end of the day? A farmers market seems horribly inefficient to me in terms of transportation, especially since it doesn't eliminate my trip to the grocery store for everything else.

[!Kaggen]

[QUOTE=roger;4957558]f Sure, shipping food sounds bad for the environment. But in what form is this food shipped? It's not analyzed. I find myself looking at all the little, poorly maintained trucks at the farmers market and wonder at the pollution they generate getting to market from 50miles away, vs trains, large semi's, container ships transporting far larger quantities at far lower costs (and polution) per mile. My gut says it more or less works out to be a wash.

Is it really a wash? How much of that same produce is driven back to the farm at the end of the day? A farmers market seems horribly inefficient to me in terms of transportation, especially since it doesn't eliminate my trip to the grocery store for everything else.

A few things missing from this accounting package:

Packaging costs:
1. Transport of raw materials to packaging company.
2. Energy costs of producing packaging.
2. Transport of packaging to the farm (if farmer packs themselves) or packer.
3. Transport of packaging away from consumer to re-cycle centre, if re-cycleable otherwise incineration or landfill.
4. Energy costs to re-cycle packaging, run landfill or incinerate


Transport,infrastructure and handling costs for centralization required by retailers.
1. Fetching or delivery from individual farms to packer or retailer central distribution.
2. Transport from packers to central retailer distribution center.
3. Refrigeration in transit from packers to retail distribution centres to individual stores.
4. Handling costs from packers to retail distribution centres to individual stores.
5. Refrigeration for storage at packers, retail distribution centres and individual stores.
6. Infrastructure costs for farmers, packers, retail distribution centers and individual stores to pack.

Wastage costs
1. Costs of storage of food waste at packers, central distribution and individuals stores.
2. Costs of transport of food waste from packers, central distribution and individuals stores.
3. Costs of handling of food waste from packers, central distribution and individuals stores.
4. Costs of disposal of food waste from packers, central distribution and individuals stores.

Transport infrastructure, requirements and handling costs:
1. Heavier vehicles cause much more damage and require much more maintenance of road surfaces
2. Railroad infrastructure.
3. Harbour infrastructure
4. Road, rail and sea transport equipment.
5. Handling equipment for road,rail and sea.
5. Energy costs to manufacture, maintain and run this transport infrastructure/vehicles/handling equipment

Just a few I could think of in 5 minutes.
Give me 4 years of M.Sc. and PhD and the list will much longer.

If you argued that retailers provide more employment and investment opportunities off the farm, I would have to agree. Whether this is sustainable is another question seeing that at the source of all this enterprise (farms, farmers, soil, water, biodiversity and the environment) the opposite is true.
Markets and especially CSA reverse this trend and farmers are now fairly employed and farms, soil, water and the environment get the investment they deserve.

[politas]

It gives off the distinct stench of woo, no different than the people pushing 'natural' medicines over the 'processed' allopathic medicines. Nonetheless, I await the science in the matter, not the emotions and scare tactics.
[derail]
Remember to include "allopathic" in your scare quotes. Modern medicine is not allopathy.

[politas]

A few things missing from this accounting package:

Packaging costs:
1. Transport of raw materials to packaging company.
2. Energy costs of producing packaging.
2. Transport of packaging to the farm (if farmer packs themselves) or packer.
3. Transport of packaging away from consumer to re-cycle centre, if re-cycleable otherwise incineration or landfill.
4. Energy costs to re-cycle packaging, run landfill or incinerate


Transport,infrastructure and handling costs for centralization required by retailers.
1. Fetching or delivery from individual farms to packer or retailer central distribution.
2. Transport from packers to central retailer distribution center.
3. Refrigeration in transit from packers to retail distribution centres to individual stores.
4. Handling costs from packers to retail distribution centres to individual stores.
5. Refrigeration for storage at packers, retail distribution centres and individual stores.
6. Infrastructure costs for farmers, packers, retail distribution centers and individual stores to pack.

Wastage costs
1. Costs of storage of food waste at packers, central distribution and individuals stores.
2. Costs of transport of food waste from packers, central distribution and individuals stores.
3. Costs of handling of food waste from packers, central distribution and individuals stores.
4. Costs of disposal of food waste from packers, central distribution and individuals stores.

Transport infrastructure, requirements and handling costs:
1. Heavier vehicles cause much more damage and require much more maintenance of road surfaces
2. Railroad infrastructure.
3. Harbour infrastructure
4. Road, rail and sea transport equipment.
5. Handling equipment for road,rail and sea.
5. Energy costs to manufacture, maintain and run this transport infrastructure/vehicles/handling equipment

Just a few I could think of in 5 minutes.
Give me 4 years of M.Sc. and PhD and the list will much longer.All of which are great arguments in favour of locally-grown fresh foods, but are entirely irrelevant to organic foods, many of which have the exact same overheads by the time they get to the supermarkets.

[!Kaggen]

All of which are great arguments in favour of locally-grown fresh foods, but are entirely irrelevant to organic foods, many of which have the exact same overheads by the time they get to the supermarkets.

I was referring to locally-grown fresh foods supplied at farmers markets in general.
I was arguing against the supposed transport inefficiency of said food purported by UncaYimmy and Roger.

[Eos of the Eons]

http://www.latimes.com/features/food/la-fo-calcook29-2009jul29,0,2340961.story


"Sometimes a [chemical] product can be organic if it is produced a certain way, but not if it is produced a different way." Furthermore, he wrote, "Part of the frustration is that the criteria by which the National Organic Standards Board judges products seems to be somewhat of a moving target and we end up with products that are OK one week and not the next."

Tony Thacher of Friends’ Ranch (http://www.friendsranches.com/), a high-quality farmers market citrus grower in Ojai, complained that he doesn't qualify for organic certification because he uses urea as a fertilizer, even though he says it is "the first truly 'organic' compound ever, synthesized in the 1700s. It's made from natural gas and nitrogen from the air and thus of course is not labeled organic. Go figure."

[roger]

The only relevant part of your post.cited research is not relevant?!?!

Okaaaaay.

[roger]

[quote=UncaYimmy]



A few things missing from this accounting package:

Packaging costs:
1. Transport of raw materials to packaging company.
2. Energy costs of producing packaging.
2. Transport of packaging to the farm (if farmer packs themselves) or packer.
3. Transport of packaging away from consumer to re-cycle centre, if re-cycleable otherwise incineration or landfill.
4. Energy costs to re-cycle packaging, run landfill or incinerate


Transport,infrastructure and handling costs for centralization required by retailers.
1. Fetching or delivery from individual farms to packer or retailer central distribution.
2. Transport from packers to central retailer distribution center.
3. Refrigeration in transit from packers to retail distribution centres to individual stores.
4. Handling costs from packers to retail distribution centres to individual stores.
5. Refrigeration for storage at packers, retail distribution centres and individual stores.
6. Infrastructure costs for farmers, packers, retail distribution centers and individual stores to pack.

Wastage costs
1. Costs of storage of food waste at packers, central distribution and individuals stores.
2. Costs of transport of food waste from packers, central distribution and individuals stores.
3. Costs of handling of food waste from packers, central distribution and individuals stores.
4. Costs of disposal of food waste from packers, central distribution and individuals stores.

Transport infrastructure, requirements and handling costs:
1. Heavier vehicles cause much more damage and require much more maintenance of road surfaces
2. Railroad infrastructure.
3. Harbour infrastructure
4. Road, rail and sea transport equipment.
5. Handling equipment for road,rail and sea.
5. Energy costs to manufacture, maintain and run this transport infrastructure/vehicles/handling equipment

None of that was "missing". Most of those costs come down to tiny fractions of a cent when you are dealing with bulk transport. Trains and cargo ships are extraordinarily efficient and cheap ways of moving things. An old panel truck or van puttering along country roads? Not so much.

A quick google shows a bunch of articles talking about exactly this point, and how the favor starts to shift to the local farms as gasoline prices increase. It's not a slam dunk, is my impression. Still, I welcome actual research.

[macdoc]

Local food will have a pretty significant cost and packaging advantage when EV and PHEV are common over the next decade as people can come to farmers and EV is suited for short distances and EV is suited to small farms that can and are going off grid.

Packaging is far easier and more easily bio-degradeable at the local level.

Local food, slow food, sustainable are all strong currents in the first world. ( any one that has seen a Japanese fruit market knows what it's about - talk about hand nurtured ).

For the developing and undeveloped world these are challenges but even for the latter - local food, sustainable farms are critical.
Mali bucked the World Bank mono culture industrial schemes and supported small farms and has done very well as a result...
All the undeveloped world needs is a bit of knowledge and a bit of appropriate tech....they HAVE the labour and the local market.
Off grid low tech/high ( solar cookers, clever water pumps, solar lighting ) tech will be of enormous benefit.

If we actually looked closely into the the human labour abuse in our fruits and veggies and some other "commodities" we'd be quite concerned with our "industrial" food.

The tale behind coffee is an educational journey in itself.

http://ow.ly/hgwo

There is a similar one on chocolate as well...

:thumbsup:

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I've been waiting patiently waiting from someone who knows about hydroponic farming (see: Hydroponics) to show up so I could enjoy some popcorn.

It appears to me that, for plants at least, the principles of hydroponics completely contradict those of organic farming.

From Wiki on the disadvantages of hydroponics:

The hydroponic conditions (presence of fertilizer and high humidity) create an environment that stimulates salmonella growth. Another disadvantage is pathogens attacks including damp-off due to Verticillium wilt caused by the high moisture levels associated with hydroponics and overwatering of soil based plants.and that's it!

Comments anyone? :duck:

[macdoc]

I think you cannot make a blanket statement. High water content veggies like cukes and radishes - the near to market aspects and controlled growing season likely out weighs the small nutritional aspects.
ALL foods are subject to various risks.

[Jorghnassen]

I've been waiting patiently waiting from someone who knows about hydroponic farming (see: Hydroponics) to show up so I could enjoy some popcorn.

It appears to me that, for plants at least, the principles of hydroponics completely contradict those of organic farming.



Would it? I mean, supposing they use organic approved fertilizers and pesticides (and you may not need a lot), why would hydroponics not be allowed to get organic certification? Skimming through the Wikipedia article, it appears hydroponics and organic label are compatible in many cases (as only some states' organic certification require the use of soil for plant growth).

Let me tell you a little anecdote. One time I went to this fancy, original restaurant (in terms of menu) and there was a dessert which included fresh "local organic" strawberries, which I ordered. I didn't know what to expect but the fruits were perfectly ripe, right consistency, perfect shape, just the right sweetness, etc. Except that it was one month before season so they could not have grown outside. They were clearly grown in a controlled environment, where it's no problem not to use pesticides and organic allowed fertilizers are no big deal. I don't think it was necessarily hydroponics, but it made me realize that "organic" does not automatically mean grown in a field exposed to the weather..

[portlandatheist]

"Organic" could mean a huge corporation or a ma and pa organization
"Organic" could mean locally grown or remotely grown
"Organic" could mean energy intensive or bio intensive
"Organic" could mean good for the soil, or a rape of the soil
"Organic" could mean good for human health, indifferent, or bad (E. Coli ridden)
"Organic" could mean no pesticides or organic carcinogenic pesticides
"Organic" could mean good for the environment or bad for the environment
"Organic" could mean a good distribution model or a bad distribution model
"Organic" doesn't mean jack @#$%

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Would it? I mean, supposing they use organic approved fertilizers and pesticides (and you may not need a lot), why would hydroponics not be allowed to get organic certification? Skimming through the Wikipedia article, it appears hydroponics and organic label are compatible in many cases (as only some states' organic certification require the use of soil for plant growth).

Let me tell you a little anecdote. One time I went to this fancy, original restaurant (in terms of menu) and there was a dessert which included fresh "local organic" strawberries, which I ordered. I didn't know what to expect but the fruits were perfectly ripe, right consistency, perfect shape, just the right sweetness, etc. Except that it was one month before season so they could not have grown outside. They were clearly grown in a controlled environment, where it's no problem not to use pesticides and organic allowed fertilizers are no big deal. I don't think it was necessarily hydroponics, but it made me realize that "organic" does not automatically mean grown in a field exposed to the weather..

I suggested that "the principles of hydroponics completely contradict those of organic farming". What could be more unnatural that growing plants hydroponically? You can grow plants using only chemicals and no natural products and produce organic food. Considering some of the arguments presented in this thread, I find this highly amusing. :eye-poppi

[quarky]

blah blah blah

just grow something and eat it.

[ectoplasm]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWxl05cCA88

The Penn and Teller organic food episode is on you tube.

[portlandatheist]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWxl05cCA88

The Penn and Teller organic food episode is on you tube.

Ahh, thanks for the informative link.

[Jorghnassen]

I suggested that "the principles of hydroponics completely contradict those of organic farming". What could be more unnatural that growing plants hydroponically? You can grow plants using only chemicals and no natural products and produce organic food. Considering some of the arguments presented in this thread, I find this highly amusing. :eye-poppi

I sort of understand where you're coming from. The proponents of organic farming want to convey the idea of small, natural, nothing synthetic farms that don't use pesticides. But it's not the case at all. The rules do allow fertilizers and pesticides, just a particular subset of them (I almost wrote "not the standard ones" but I'm not entirely convinced this is true, e.g. Bt is a certified organic pesticide, and I need not tell you about the GMO Bt corn that caused as stir a few years ago). Nothing about organic specifies that it can only be sold locally and there are now tons of large scale operations as well.

The more one looks into the subject, the more appearant the lack of differences between organic farming and conventional farming becomes noticeable.* The nutrional aspect of it is just another example. Agribusiness in general noticed that there's a demand for organic products, and that there is a market of people who are willing to pay more for what is essentially now a label, so it's just another product line for many companies. The methods are a little different, cost a little more, but the products sell.

*does not apply to organic meat, where fertilizer and pesticides issues are replaced with "preventive measures" and homeopathic treatment when the former don't work issues; though as much as I like Rolfe's anecdotes, they don't actually constitute random sampling, I'd really like to see some proper statistical analysis of the animal side of organic vs conventional farming...

[!Kaggen]

I've been waiting patiently waiting from someone who knows about hydroponic farming (see: Hydroponics) to show up so I could enjoy some popcorn.

It appears to me that, for plants at least, the principles of hydroponics completely contradict those of organic farming.

From Wiki on the disadvantages of hydroponics:

The hydroponic conditions (presence of fertilizer and high humidity) create an environment that stimulates salmonella growth. Another disadvantage is pathogens attacks including damp-off due to Verticillium wilt caused by the high moisture levels associated with hydroponics and overwatering of soil based plants.and that's it!

Comments anyone? :duck:

The first principle of organic farming is that it must be soil based.
I am not in the mood to comment on this principle.

What I will comment on is experience with hydroponics.
1. Their are no rules and regulations for hydroponics-good, already covered this
2. Hydroponics is completely dependent on off-farm inputs-bad, vulnerability to shortages, strikes, oil cartels and market speculation
3. Hydroponic systems are not robust-bad, ANY small mistake could cost dearly e.g. not maintaining constant pH of hydroponic solution for <24hrs
4. Hydroponic systems cannot re-use any waste they produce- bad, sawdust , used plastic growing bags, dead biomass are all useless on hydroponic farms. In fact they are hazards for disease transfer and need to be removed or burnt-bad again
5. Hydroponic systems are capital intensive to begin-bad, especially in times were cash flow is critical.
5. Hydroponic systems completely ignore any role played by soil micro-organisms in plant growth and health- bad, millions of years of co-evolution are completely ignored e.g. Mycorrhiza which can increase profitability for free if managed
6. Open hydroponics where plants are grown in soils, but all the nutrients are added/managed by irrigation- bad, ground water pollution is common in these systems unless hugely expensive plastic liners etc are placed at depths under the soil. Also excessive watering is required as nutrients are only in solution which can lead to salinity of soils which is extremely costly to rectify.

All in all hydroponics is an unsustainable compromise and only just makes economic sense for high value crops such as cut flowers, tomatoes, cucumbers and lettuce.
The fact that Israeli's use it extensively is much more indicative to the vulnerability of their existence in a desert without oil and in my opinion a much bigger threat than Iranian nuclear bombs to the future of Israel.

[!Kaggen]

"Organic" could mean a huge corporation or a ma and pa organization
"Organic" could mean locally grown or remotely grown
"Organic" could mean energy intensive or bio intensive
"Organic" could mean good for the soil, or a rape of the soil
"Organic" could mean good for human health, indifferent, or bad (E. Coli ridden)
"Organic" could mean no pesticides or organic carcinogenic pesticides
"Organic" could mean good for the environment or bad for the environment
"Organic" could mean a good distribution model or a bad distribution model
"Organic" doesn't mean jack @#$%

Yes boxes are a compromise, including the skeptic and atheist ones:boxedin:

[!Kaggen]

I suggested that "the principles of hydroponics completely contradict those of organic farming". What could be more unnatural that growing plants hydroponically? You can grow plants using only chemicals and no natural products and produce organic food. Considering some of the arguments presented in this thread, I find this highly amusing. :eye-poppi

Yes everything is particles or properties thereof .i.e. you see representations, unless you can see these particles and there properties direct!!:eye-poppi
This includes "chemicals" and "hydroponics".
Now whats your point or are you just happy playing dilettante?

[Rolfe]

as much as I like Rolfe's anecdotes, they don't actually constitute random sampling, I'd really like to see some proper statistical analysis of the animal side of organic vs conventional farming...


One bit that got missed out above was that "organic" may mean high welfare standards, or miserable, disease-ridden animals.

Personally, I'll never touch organic animal produce, or stop criticising it, until the day they remove all recommendations and guidelines promoting the use of homoeopathy from their "standards".

If you're going to abuse an animal by denying it medical treatment, at least face up to what you're doing, don't hide behind the delusion that shaken-up sugar pills are medicine.

Rolfe.

[Satra]

So, people, I didn't read much of the replies, so sorry if my text went redundant with another post.

I'll tell you about my perceptions and what I heard or read, in a concept that makes intellegible what I percieve, a concept that I share with (many) other persons:p. I don't pretend it's the ultimate truth. It is useful.

Everything on earth -

- has an amount of energy

- and a kind of energy


The amount of energy
depends on how intensely they take part at the life process, for vegetables that means: how fresh they are (if they are nearer to desintegration or to the life form they have been).

and depends of the level of life energy contained in the environment of things: you may have noticed that at work certain persons (or even in sites like this) are professional energy-"vampires". you find them among the -fruitless- provokers and aggressors, chronical complainers etc. I regularly feel that certain things in shops have no energy, sometimes the hole shop has next to none of it (that tends to happen in very cheap shops where the employees, fabricators etc are badly payed, f.ex. . But I notice this also with some articles in normal shops.). Principle is obviously:
you take 2 pots: one is empty, one is full of liquid. you link them at the base, and the liquid will flow as to fill both pots to the same level.

(besides, you can learn to save your energy as far as you need it when dealing with energy-vampires. there's not a fatuity, you need conscience and centering. And you can refill objects / food with life energy, there are different methods.)

So you take vegetables which were grown / harvested / packed / transported / stored / sold by people who work under stressing conditions (bad payment / exceeding hurry / bullying etc) ?
Huu, probably NOTHING left in the pot.
The kind of products I need more energy to digest than it provides me, quite exhausting.



The kind of energy

when you eat something, you directly integrate the energy / the information / the experience that has your food.
This energy will take part of your energy. It will have an effect on you, your body, your conscience, even your feelings.

Somebody p*ssed in your drink-water? You won't die by drinking it, but I remain sceptic if that really makes sense:cool:.
Your mushrooms were grown in a highly radio-active region? Hmmmm, you're sure you want to eat them? Any place for hazardous waste in your environments?

The meat you're consuming provides from an animal that has had 2m² to spend a horrible, as enerving as boring life, never breathed fresh air and had a traumatising death? Wow. What intrepidity.
(yes, in my eyes death doesn't need to be traumatising. And I've got some experience with the matter.)

In my eyes, people are half dead of fear in our time. "I may lose my job!?" "I may have not enough money?!" "I may become ill?!" "I may be ugly?!" "people might aggress / rob me?!" "what will my neighbours think if I...?!" "what will happen if this politician with that programme comes (or comes not) to power?!" "what if Iran used atomic bombs?!" "what if states never stop to make war and this just to ameliorate their finances and political influence?" "there is a muslim. is he a terrorist?!" "there's an antisemite! is he a potential murderer?!" "there is a death-penalty proponer...":gasp::duck::D...(sorry, I live in Europe ;)hihi) "what if it rained during my vacation?!"

a big focus of people is fear. why? in Europe we have unimployment insurance (ok it's not splendid at all, but it's better than nothing.), we have health insurance, we have so much food here that we even more or less easily can throw it away.
Maybe because they eat such bad aliments.
I practically don't eat meat anyway:D, and I'm pretty fine without. Just a question of consuetude. I even don't digest meat any more and just do not feel like eating any, the rare excecption proves the rule.

People often lack of feeling linked to their environment. Many often feel separated (alone), helpless etc. And what they eat is grown just as if Humans were separated from the rest. As if we were alone. There may be a link (and / or a common reason).

The vegetables you find in normal supermarkets transport the information "rapid, much, no matter the quality, no matter the whole, money money money."
Vegetables grown in grannys garden and by some organical farmers transport the information: "we care to provide attention and love to what surrounds us. we like good, tasty, delicious food."

You don't need to feel that consciously, as most of us probably won't be able to analyze the mineral content of our water ourselves. That's just the info you assimilate and that will participate in constituting your conscience, your energy field.

There's much inbetween.
And: in organic supermarkets you can find vegetables very poor in life-energy, as you can find vegetables with a relatively high level in normal supermarkets.

the fresh vegetables (1 day to 1 week in general, depends on the storing conditions and the kind of vegetable) grown in your own region are the most healthy / carrying the most life-energy in general. in supermarkets things often are older and come from anywhere but your region.

people really MAY develop the sensitivity required to feel which aliments are good for them and which not, in each moment.

instead of discussing "this magazine said that there are toxic chemicals in..." "this magazine said that organic food is not better than conventional" "my doc says everyone should use ONLY olive oil" ETC ETC.

Train your perception what's adequate for YOU in each moment and you
a) don't get easily ill because you give your soul and body what they need
b) don't behave a useless way because of what anybody said.
c) don't get easily things go to seed in your fridge, and so save your money and ressources in general and have a healthier energy in your living space.


People think that there is ONE ideal way to nourrish for everyone at every time.

I'm convinced that is not true. Everyone has to find out for himself. Inspiration from others may be enrichening, you can try out.

Even fast-food can be useful in certain moments.

And the most important is to like and appreciate what you buy, what you prepare, what you serve and eat.

If you REALLY do that, you don't even need organical farming, probably.
I THINK it's healthy for us all if people go this way (organical farming) in general, because it's a way amplifying harmony and respect. I would very pleased to see you follow it. But I wouldn't never choose for myself what I don't feel, so I don't expect other people to act differently.

[Rolfe]

How would you measure this energy, and in what units? Joules?

Rolfe.

[Satra]

Oh, and for the hard-core ones who are REALLY interested as well in philosophy as in organical farming and don't fear a mystic approach the name "Michael Roads" could be interesting.

His approach to meditate on what the land, what the plants need is very sensible in my eyes.
It's the direct way to the core of problems.

We often use our intellect to solve problems and forget to train and listen to our holistic perception, while it is an as powerful instrument.

[Satra]

Hi Rolfe.

I do not mesure with any instrument but my senses. As far as I know there are people who mesure it or can show it on special photos.
But I didn't try and am not such interested. I have my "method" and it works.
If you want to call it method. I feel it. I look on something with poor energy and get a weak feeling, I feel energized (powerful / happy) when looking on energetic ones. I get some kind of antipathic feeling looking on aliments which are not good for me in that moment. a indifferent feeling towards aliments I don't need. a positive feeling towards the aliments that fit to me at that moment.
In my eyes every person that decides strongly to be able to discern what's good for her and what not will find a method.

[Capsid]

Thanks for introducing me to the word conseutude.

Do you think that Belladonna has a lot of energy? I'm thinking of trying that out for myself as it's a natural, organic plant.

[shuttlt]

Hi Rolfe.

I do not mesure with any instrument but my senses. As far as I know there are people who mesure it or can show it on special photos.
But I didn't try and am not such interested. I have my "method" and it works.
If you want to call it method. I feel it. I look on something with poor energy and get a weak feeling, I feel energized (powerful / happy) when looking on energetic ones. I get some kind of antipathic feeling looking on aliments which are not good for me in that moment. a indifferent feeling towards aliments I don't need. a positive feeling towards the aliments that fit to me at that moment.
In my eyes every person that decides strongly to be able to discern what's good for her and what not will find a method.
Why not go for the million? It sounds like you've got a testable ability that could that should fit the criteria.

[Satra]

If that's useful for anybody:

This method came to me during a period when I

- trained Aikido trying to perceive the energyflows (I was not very successfull^^, to short period)

- worked for an (uncontrolled=nearly) organical farmer and stood there all the day behind the mountains of fresh nice vegetables which were all grown by himself in my region (and nourrished from those vegetables).

- tried out (completely undogmatic:D) macrobiotic alimentation (means I ate much honey because I LOVE honey, don't care if macrobiotics tell not to eat any:), I ate almost all vegetables that were listed as "moderately bad" in the macrobiotic view (I'm really no fanatic of cabbage:D), and ate many varieties of (wholemeal) cereals, not only rice and buckwheat:sour:. (hey that was quite interesting and I felt very good with this alimentation. in fact I didn't change it so much afterwards and since :D. ) Having really fresh vegetables, the old varieties which are rich in taste ( less rich in harvest, and less "perfectly" shaped ) I don't need any somehow sophisticated meal to feel fully satisfied (even if I really love to cook a nice sophisticated meal).

These are all factors who helped to develop my sensitivity towards my body and towards energy in food.


In this time I noticed the huge difference between these old varieties of vegetables with completely irregular, which were quite dirty, came from my region and were grown without pesticides etc, and the proper ones in the supermarket. those in the organic supermarket were (all) undeniably poorer in energy, but those in the cheap supermarket allmost all had no perceivable energy and I really felt weak and bad to go through the supermarket and to look on them. the normal supermarket was a -little- better. not much.
I also felt an important difference between vegetables on my stand which were freshly picked in the morning and those picked one day or some days ago.


Besides that I sometimes saw people with a pendulum standing before the carrots asking if he should buy them:D.
For me that looked somehow conceited ("I make use of a pendulum, I'm a sophisticated person"~"I'm a highly developped person so I need excellent food, not like you guys who just pass and grab a pack of carrots.":D). In fact I tried a pendulum at home and I found that it could give answers but sometimes obviously "yes" or "no" was not enough because it rotated a strange way. So I had to ask my intuition to know. And so I decided, if I have to ask my intuition anyway, than I can clear my question entirely through it, without use of a pendulum, as the answers of my intuition are more explicite and complex than those of the pendulum.
I had a friend who used another method (don't remember the name, a physical test that discerns between "weak" and "strong".), I learned that also, but my use of it was not more precise than the pendulum.

[Satra]

Capsid, then I wish you your intuition is strong and precise and you would listen to it while deciding if, in which moment and in which quantity you will consume belladonna :). I did never try any, but it doesn't have any good reputation as an -aliment-, as you know :D.
There are other psycho-active "things" which can enlargen your consciousness and are less dangerous.

And for the word "consuetude", I looked it up in leo.org and chose this one as it sounded familiar to me - I was not completely sure if the other proposed words transported the right idea.


Shuttlt, I'm sceptic I'd feel ok with all this electro-smog, no day-light no fresh air in tv-shows^^. That could stress/disturb me, and I'm not sure it would work then. And besides: who knows about energy in aliments? how many of the people who look these shows is interested in such a question? not familiar / to theoretical for the public, I guess.
besides, I really consider this as a basic ability which children should be sensibilized for at home and everybody should use as we use our eyes. I don't see what should be amazing about it.

[Safe-Keeper]

It surprises me not only how irrational the arguments for organic foods are (sorry, but they are), but also how the exactly same arguments never seem to be applied to any other fields where your life and health are just as much at risk. Cue my consciousness-raising Plane to Paris dilemma.

Situation: you need to fly from your home town of London to Paris, and have two airline companies to choose from - the international corporation known as British Commonwealth Airlines and the locally run Ms. Peggy's Natural Aircraft. Read the description of the two companies, then tell me which one you'd trust with your money and life.Conventional: British Commonwealth Airlines
Ticket cost: £133
Hours from London to Paris: less than 2

Known alternatively as The British Commonwealth Airlines, the Commonwealth Airlines, the BCA or the CA, the British Commonwealth Airlines is an international corporation which flies to locations in 34 countries throughout Europe, Asia and North America. The company's profits have enabled it to make use of only the latest in aircraft designs - composite machines built from the best aluminum and composites money can buy. The corporation takes pride in how their planes meet every possible environmental and safety standard and regulations. The planes have the latest in safety equipment, and the planes' Fly-By-Wire software makes them a breeze to fly. Their fuel consumption and Co2 emissions are reduced to a minimum thanks to money invested in better engines, fuel, hull design, and energy-saving flight techniques.

CA planes are widely renowned for their record-shattering record on safety and environmental impact - having come out as #1 in every single study from 2005 to today, the corporation is a world leader in green, safe flying.Organic: Aunt Peggy's Organic Aircraft
Ticket cost: £250
Hours from London to Paris: 8 (incl. 3 stops for refuelling)

Aunt Peggy's Organic Aircraft, or A.P.O.A., is a local family-run company with 29 employees* based in Camden, London, just two hundred meters from your home. A.P.O.A. follows the proud tradition of the early British fliers, from before Big Airlines monopolized the air market. Their Martin MB1 planes are made from wood imported from the nearest rainforest and are stretched with WWI-style canvas. Aunt Peggy is an environmentalist at heart and sticks with the organic, natural way to build planes - non-organic safety measures such as smoke detectors, parachutes and life vests are banned, as is Fly-By-Wire, radar, radio and all the other gizzmos made from chemicals which make life unhealthy for the world's wildlife, and for Big Airline pilots and passengers. A.P.O.A. makes use of natural tools only, such as oil lanterns, sextants and mirrors with which to flash morse code signals to other planes and people on the ground by reflecting sunlight. The family business proudly boasts that it neither tries nor comes close to succeeding at meeting a single safety or environmental regulation, believing these to be "protectionistic" and a hindrance to innovation.

A.P.O.A. and its customers sneer at the accident statistics and various studies that label their tiny gas-guzzling wood-and-canvas aircraft inefficient, dangerous to their fliers and terrible for the environment. After all, these studies are all done by scientists of big corporations, probably even in the pay of Big Airlines! Either way, organic flying contradicts scientific dogma, which scientists are terrified of breaking-we all know how much scorn a poor egghead gets from his mates if he thinks outside of established tradition.

/end breakdown

I think I want to be politically incorrect and support Big Airlines by buying an economy class ticket from CA Incorporated. How about the rest of you? I'm particularly interested in what !Kaggen has to say.

*I'm being deliberately dishonest here - we all know that organic food producers are just as Big as their conventional counterparts. However, I'm playing on peoples' perceptions here.

ETA: Damnit, damnit, why didn't I see this before writing my problem above?
His approach to meditate on what the land, what the plants need is very sensible in my eyes.
It's the direct way to the core of problems.

We often use our intellect to solve problems and forget to train and listen to our holistic perception, while it is an as powerful instrument.OK, everyone, just pretend I wrote that BCA relies on state-of-the-art weather reporting while Aunt Peggy and her pilots forecast weather by holistic meditation and prayer :P .

BCA ATC to BCA Flight 60: Doppler radar picking up storm front over the Channel, just off Normandie. Suggest you divert 30 degrees north.
Aunt Peggy to pilot before he takes off: God has revealed to me that the weather will be clear. Have a nice flight!

BCA pilot: Say, Chris, this snowstorm ain't good and the barometer pressure is dropping jolly fast. Let's climb above the clouds before the weather really gets in, what do you say?
Aunt Peggy's pilot: Snow?! the plane's guardian angel said nothing about snow! I need to meditate on this! Jason, take the stick while I fetch my crystals!

[Capsid]

Capsid, then I wish you your intuition is strong and precise and you would listen to it while deciding if, in which moment and in which quantity you will consume belladonna :). I did never try any, but it doesn't have any good reputation as an -aliment-, as you know :D.
There are other psycho-active "things" which can enlargen your consciousness and are less dangerous.

And for the word "consuetude", I looked it up in leo.org and chose this one as it sounded familiar to me - I was not completely sure if the other proposed words transported the right idea.


Shuttlt, I'm sceptic I'd feel ok with all this electro-smog, no day-light no fresh air in tv-shows^^. That could stress/disturb me, and I'm not sure it would work then. And besides: who knows about energy in aliments? how many of the people who look these shows is interested in such a question? not familiar / to theoretical for the public, I guess.
besides, I really consider this as a basic ability which children should be sensibilized for at home and everybody should use as we use our eyes. I don't see what should be amazing about it.Are you saying that being able to distinguish the energy in organic versus non-organic food is a basic ability? I'd maintain that it is definitely not. If you want to prove that you can though, you can be tested with the possibility of winning a million dollars.

[Rolfe]

:popcorn1

Rolfe.

[!Kaggen]

:chores006::chores006::chores006::chores006:
Sorry safe-keeper, no time for hypothetical hypotheticals, too busy working with the real world.
You and satra entertain rolfe a while whilst I wait for some relevant points

[The Central Scrutinizer]

"Organic" could mean a huge corporation or a ma and pa organization
"Organic" could mean locally grown or remotely grown
"Organic" could mean energy intensive or bio intensive
"Organic" could mean good for the soil, or a rape of the soil
"Organic" could mean good for human health, indifferent, or bad (E. Coli ridden)
"Organic" could mean no pesticides or organic carcinogenic pesticides
"Organic" could mean good for the environment or bad for the environment
"Organic" could mean a good distribution model or a bad distribution model
"Organic" doesn't mean jack @#$%

This is the correct answer.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Hi Rolfe.

I do not mesure with any instrument but my senses. As far as I know there are people who mesure it or can show it on special photos.
But I didn't try and am not such interested. I have my "method" and it works.
If you want to call it method. I feel it. I look on something with poor energy and get a weak feeling, I feel energized (powerful / happy) when looking on energetic ones. I get some kind of antipathic feeling looking on aliments which are not good for me in that moment. a indifferent feeling towards aliments I don't need. a positive feeling towards the aliments that fit to me at that moment.
In my eyes every person that decides strongly to be able to discern what's good for her and what not will find a method.

Ummmmm......what??? :confused:

[The Central Scrutinizer]

If that's useful for anybody:

This method came to me during a period when I

- trained Aikido trying to perceive the energyflows (I was not very successfull^^, to short period)

- worked for an (uncontrolled=nearly) organical farmer and stood there all the day behind the mountains of fresh nice vegetables which were all grown by himself in my region (and nourrished from those vegetables).

- tried out (completely undogmatic:D) macrobiotic alimentation (means I ate much honey because I LOVE honey, don't care if macrobiotics tell not to eat any:), I ate almost all vegetables that were listed as "moderately bad" in the macrobiotic view (I'm really no fanatic of cabbage:D), and ate many varieties of (wholemeal) cereals, not only rice and buckwheat:sour:. (hey that was quite interesting and I felt very good with this alimentation. in fact I didn't change it so much afterwards and since :D. ) Having really fresh vegetables, the old varieties which are rich in taste ( less rich in harvest, and less "perfectly" shaped ) I don't need any somehow sophisticated meal to feel fully satisfied (even if I really love to cook a nice sophisticated meal).

These are all factors who helped to develop my sensitivity towards my body and towards energy in food.


In this time I noticed the huge difference between these old varieties of vegetables with completely irregular, which were quite dirty, came from my region and were grown without pesticides etc, and the proper ones in the supermarket. those in the organic supermarket were (all) undeniably poorer in energy, but those in the cheap supermarket allmost all had no perceivable energy and I really felt weak and bad to go through the supermarket and to look on them. the normal supermarket was a -little- better. not much.
I also felt an important difference between vegetables on my stand which were freshly picked in the morning and those picked one day or some days ago.


Besides that I sometimes saw people with a pendulum standing before the carrots asking if he should buy them:D.
For me that looked somehow conceited ("I make use of a pendulum, I'm a sophisticated person"~"I'm a highly developped person so I need excellent food, not like you guys who just pass and grab a pack of carrots.":D). In fact I tried a pendulum at home and I found that it could give answers but sometimes obviously "yes" or "no" was not enough because it rotated a strange way. So I had to ask my intuition to know. And so I decided, if I have to ask my intuition anyway, than I can clear my question entirely through it, without use of a pendulum, as the answers of my intuition are more explicite and complex than those of the pendulum.
I had a friend who used another method (don't remember the name, a physical test that discerns between "weak" and "strong".), I learned that also, but my use of it was not more precise than the pendulum.

:crazy:

[!Kaggen]

:crazy:

good point at least that makes sense

[shuttlt]

Capsid, then I wish you your intuition is strong and precise and you would listen to it while deciding if, in which moment and in which quantity you will consume belladonna :). I did never try any, but it doesn't have any good reputation as an -aliment-, as you know :D.
There are other psycho-active "things" which can enlargen your consciousness and are less dangerous.

And for the word "consuetude", I looked it up in leo.org and chose this one as it sounded familiar to me - I was not completely sure if the other proposed words transported the right idea.


Shuttlt, I'm sceptic I'd feel ok with all this electro-smog, no day-light no fresh air in tv-shows^^. That could stress/disturb me, and I'm not sure it would work then. And besides: who knows about energy in aliments? how many of the people who look these shows is interested in such a question? not familiar / to theoretical for the public, I guess.
besides, I really consider this as a basic ability which children should be sensibilized for at home and everybody should use as we use our eyes. I don't see what should be amazing about it.

If it's a basic ability then the joke's on us. You still get the million. The ability doesn't have to be unique to you and in fact I suspect Randi would be happier handing over the cash for something that could be verified by any 6 year old with an interest in doing so. It would just be as neat as heck if it turned out something so basic and common had been missed.

If you need to do this in natural daylight or something I'm sure ways could be found to accommodate you. If this power works in supermarkets, I'm sure your sensitivity to being enclosed in electrosmog isn't insurmountable.

As for the pendulum trick. Have you ever Googled it to find out how it works? Have you tried asking your pendulum a question that you definitely don't already know the answer to but can verify? Generally these pendulums are only good at answering questions that the person holding the pendulum knows the answer to. If your pendulum can answer questions you don't know the answer to then it too could earn you a million.

[Satra]

Oh, Safe-Keeper, you pretty know everything about the world, that's marvellous. Other people are sooo stupid and prejudiced. I'm really grateful people like you exist. *kiss flying*
;)
besides: I'm sorry for you if your intuition doesn't work (and you even don't know people whose intuition does work). perhaps you can practice to develop it, but I propose you just may consider yourself as disabled for whole lifetime (that will prevent you to be shocked by getting your mind opened).
XD *more kisses flying*

[Satra]

Capsid, tell me if my text wasn't clear. Because I think in this point it was.
so: no, I never did pretend that.
please read carefully things that are sublined and the last paragraph.

[Aepervius]

Everybody read the video of P&T "bovine copro-product" ?

It ain't scientific, but it certainly raise a lot of good point on organic food myths (no tasting better, not more nutriment, potentially use more dangerous, because older, pesticide etc...).

[Capsid]

Capsid, tell me if my text wasn't clear. Because I think in this point it was.
so: no, I never did pretend that.
please read carefully things that are sublined and the last paragraph.
I suspect you are scamming us. At least I do hope you are!

[Eos of the Eons]

Eh? Energy? If that stuff is giving off energy then I wouldn't recommend eating it. I'd be trying to figure out why it's radioactive in the first place.

:wink8:

[shuttlt]

I suspect you are scamming us. At least I do hope you are!
How dull. You're probably right.

[Satra]

the first question I asked a pendulum was "should I give my croton plant water?" without looking into the pot, the plant looking fine.
(hey I'm not stupid, even if some people have difficulties to accept it. it's not accidentally that I post on a forum proponing scepticism.)
the pendulum said "yes". I looked into the pot, the earth was completely dry.
So for that kind of questions it's wonderful.

people use it for medication, with success.

For a short time I used it to ask for the weather in the time I worked outside, standing on the market place the whole day. That worked but was not practical. it's important to have the right question. asking "will there be rain?" it may be that there will be plenty of sunshine and some raindrops, but the pendulum said "yes". "will the day be sunny?", same problem. so I asked "do I need a jacket?" and that always worked.

but in fact while I asked the pendulum my intuition said "wear this" or "wear that", so I stopped to use a pendulum and just asked myself the question.

and the answer always was right (at the beginning I sometimes did not follow my intuition, because I couldn't believe it or thought "yeah, such a sunny day, even if it rains a bit, I will stand it^^..." but no, the intuition always knew what was the optimal option to act.)
Always. Only problem: no exception proving the rule.

the point is: it is unfailing concerning for the responses it gives about the PRESENT. not about the future.

So I may ask "what is the best action to do NOW?" but not "if I do that, will this or that happen?". and be open to unexpected answers!
so if I asked "what kind of meal should I prepare now?" answer: "you won't prepare any meal"
"but I'm hungry!? I need to eat! I've got my vegetables here, I've got plenty of time and I WILL surely eat now. Stupid intuition."
I begin cutting some vegetables, perhaps to fry some onions.
Phone rings, a mate saying: "Hey, I'm invited for a party this evening and just passing in your road, you could accompany me, if you like?!" /:
"er, I'm just cooking, do you want to share my meal and go to the party afterwards?" "no, I will leave in the next 5 min. and there's a nice buffet there." ok.... byebye cut vegetables or fried onions, see you later.

And it works for me. It happens that I get "it doesn't make sense for you to know the answer", but as long as I get an answer it's 100% correct.
When I ask questions about other people, there may be an answer, but frequently I get "That's none of your business".


( Of course I know, that obviously all is nothing but hallucination and coincidence. I'm sorry to waste your time, guys *wink to the public*, but I'm confident that you read and react just as long as it entertains you. So it will have an additional and non intended positive effect even for those who can't have a proper use of what I share with you. ;) )

[Safe-Keeper]

Sorry safe-keeper, no time for hypothetical hypotheticals, too busy working with the real world.I take it you didn't get the point. Pity.

You and satra entertain rolfe a while whilst I wait for some relevant pointsI gave you a long post which illustrated a very relevant point, spelled out in the very first paragraph: that organic food supporters use, to say the least, bizarre logic to support their stance, and that they suspiciously do not use the same logic in any other part of their lives (except maybe when faced with the choice of alternative of normal medicine). How, in a thread on organic foods, is this not a relevant point?

Oh, and which airline would you have picked? And why?

Oh, Safe-Keeper, you pretty know everything about the world, that's marvellous. Other people are sooo stupid and prejudiced. I'm really grateful people like you exist. *kiss flying*:rolleyes:

besides: I'm sorry for you if your intuition doesn't workYou said nothing about intuition. You advised us to not think rationally and instead seek answers through meditation. That's an entirely different thing altogether.

As for waving pendulums at plants to figure out if you should eat or water them, how is that different from using divining rods to find water, or spirit boards to summon ghosts? You hold in your hands an object, you expect it to move in a certain way, and you subconsciously move it. The science behind this phenomenon is well understood, and there's no reason whatsoever to need to apply anything supernatural.

[Satra]

what does "scamming" mean? it's not mentionned in my online dictionnary.

and where is the problem? I took care to underline and emphasize things, please notice it. or what?

I think my text says:

- eat what you truely appreciate, whatever it might be, that is the healthiest attitude a person can have towards food.
- fresh vegetables grown in your region have the most life-energy and so are the healthiest in general [that might be important for ill persons or persons who want to strengten their life energy, I add now to emphasize the difference between this and the precedant statement].
- old varieties of vegetables tend to have a better taste even if their shape is not so regular and the harvest less important.
- the material and immaterial info your food transports will be part of your materiality and immateriality [you can try to tell me that you are purely material and consequently not think nor feel.:rolleyes:, I add]
- everyone should develop a sense concerning which aliments are good for his body and soul.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

what does "scamming" mean? it's not mentionned in my online dictionnary.

and where is the problem? I took care to underline and emphasize things, please notice it. or what?

I think my text says:

- eat what you truely appreciate, whatever it might be, that is the healthiest attitude a person can have towards food.
- fresh vegetables grown in your region have the most life-energy and so are the healthiest in general [that might be important for ill persons or persons who want to strengten their life energy, I add now to emphasize the difference between this and the precedant statement].
- old varieties of vegetables tend to have a better taste even if their shape is not so regular and the harvest less important.
- the material and immaterial info your food transports will be part of your materiality and immateriality [you can try to tell me that you are purely material and consequently not think nor feel.:rolleyes:, I add]
- everyone should develop a sense concerning which aliments are good for his body and soul.

And my text says:

:crazy:

[Satra]

You said nothing about intuition. You advised us to not think rationally and instead seek answers through meditation. That's an entirely different thing altogether.
No. Never.
I proposed you to combine your right and your left brainside. I said something like "holistic perception is an as powerful instrument as intellectual approach is."
all forms of meditation, all divination methods and intuition have in common that they consist of or (tend to) link to holistic perception.

As for waving pendulums at plants to figure out if you should eat or water them, how is that different from using divining rods to find water, or spirit boards to summon ghosts? You hold in your hands an object, you expect it to move in a certain way, and you subconsciously move it. The science behind this phenomenon is well understood, and there's no reason whatsoever to need to apply anything supernatural.

I described my experience with the pendulum. I simply didn't know what answer it should give.

But: yes, it is an if not THE art of such methods NOT to expect anything. That's why in good manuals it is said not to ask for any matters you are emotionally linked with!
And why I tell people to start meditating [calm down the left/intellectual hemisphere, not think anymore, go into purely holistic perception.] before they try to use a pendulum f.ex..

for so called divination methods I advise to have use much more of your right/holistic hemisphere than the intellectual, yes.
but I not in general approach to the world. there are matters where a more intellectual approach is useful. and many many matters where you get the bettest result combining them nearly equally.

but rare the humans who have regular and conscient use of their right hemisphere!


in fact I'm not fanatic at all of divination methods. they may be a nice -ritual- for centering, starting get a feeling for and train your intuition. And may certainly have other positive effects some persons can appreciate.

Perhaps they may be regarded as a can-opener. as long as the can of someones intuition is quite closed or the person doesn't know how to open it, they may be necessary to attain the content of intuition.

People getting familiar with treating their intuition, they can choose not to use any more this instrument. some people may have a comfortable feeling with it and keep it's use.

and some people may have a more natural and less inhibited approach to their
intuition and not have any use of divination methods or leave this or those they experienced more or less quickly behind them.

in some cases, when one feels not centered / puzzled / not clear / can closed, certain divination methods may certainly help (not all, in my eyes: in those cases one tends to need a clear advice which approach to choose now, not a complex explication of the situation - the more complex the answer is the more you need to use your intuition to have use of the "data" you got. so we would return to the initial problem.).

The different methods can awaken the playing instinkt in persons :) (did for me)."how does this method work?" "how does this situation depict in this method?" but in my experience one should follow his intuition if it makes sense to ask^^.
if you ask to much, at a certain point you won't get any more sensible answer.

so for people who are to sceptic towards cartomancy, I-Ging and divination methods in general : don't try a purely leftbrain/intellectual approach of those sytems, you won't open a can with nothing but a convential q-tip, and if a fruit need sun to ripe you won't have success by trying to replace sun by water.
develop and learn to trust your intuition, it will be as fine if not more useful.
in case anybody feels like!

Hugh :D

[!Kaggen]

I take it you didn't get the point. Pity.

I gave you a long post which illustrated a very relevant point, spelled out in the very first paragraph: that organic food supporters use, to say the least, bizarre logic to support their stance, and that they suspiciously do not use the same logic in any other part of their lives (except maybe when faced with the choice of alternative of normal medicine). How, in a thread on organic foods, is this not a relevant point?

Oh, and which airline would you have picked? And why?



I got your point, I am just not interested in organic food supporters, being politically correct and hypothetical air travel choices of hypothetical airlines.
However I am interested in the perception of risk.
So I suggest another scenario which is much closer to reality and really brings out how people perceive risk..
What technique would you choose to combat global warming.
1. Prayer
2. Sending millions of mirrors into space to deflect sunlight? http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/big-idea/01/shading-earth

[Satra]

Scrutinizer, I beg your pardon if I have traumatised you by transgressing your horizont. Just ignore my posts, eat some chips and I'll keep my fingers crossed that you will feel fine again afterwards.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Scrutinizer, I beg your pardon if I have traumatised you by transgressing your horizont. Just ignore my posts, eat some chips and I'll keep my fingers crossed that you will feel fine again afterwards.

You didn't just transgress my horizont, you completely broke it.

[Uncayimmy]

I was referring to locally-grown fresh foods supplied at farmers markets in general.
I was arguing against the supposed transport inefficiency of said food purported by UncaYimmy and Roger.

You failed to demonstrate your point because you did not differentiate between retailers and local markets in terms of how they actually operate.

For example, are you saying that a local farmer requires no packaging? Most of the produce I buy is just sitting in a bin. It's transported in boxes. How do farmers move the stuff?

A big factor in gas mileage is wind resistance. An 18 wheeler will get 4 to 8 miles per gallon, but they haul probably 10 to 20 times as much as a pickup truck.

How much more spoilage does a farmer have versus the climate controlled system used by retailers?

And what about the very real issue of transporting the same produce to and from the local market? And the multiple trips by the consumer?

Economy of scale is very real. What you're arguing is that we went from a more efficient system (local markets) to a less efficient and more costly system (retail grocery stores). You need to crunch some numbers to convince me that's the case. I'm well aware that there are lots of things to look at, but you actually have to look at them to find out the answer.

I find it hard to believe that the produce market behaves differently than nearly every other market when it comes to economy of scale.

[roger]

Unca, just stop thinking please. The 'organics' find it deeply troubling and worthy of derision.

[sol invictus]

A big factor in gas mileage is wind resistance. An 18 wheeler will get 4 to 8 miles per gallon, but they haul probably 10 to 20 times as much as a pickup truck.

A local farmer harvests greens by hand, puts them in cardboard boxes (which she'll re-use several times until they fall apart), puts the boxes in a truck, drives to the market a few miles away, sets the boxes up on a table, and sells them to people that drive to the market.

A big farm harvests greens using a machine, packs them in sealed plastic containers containing inert gas, puts those in boxes which they'll never see again, puts those in a large truck which drives them hundreds of miles to a grocery wholesaler or warehouse. From there they may go into smaller trucks for distribution to grocery stores, or they may go into an airplane for transport thousands of miles away, and from there to stores - which people drive to.

It's very hard for me to see how the second can be more energy efficient than the first. The last step (delivery to grocery stores) is often done in trucks not much bigger than the farmer's, for one thing (at least based on the trucks I often see delivering food to local stores).


How much more spoilage does a farmer have versus the climate controlled system used by retailers?

Very little if the market is reasonably busy, because the stuff is sold within a few days of harvesting it.

And what about the very real issue of transporting the same produce to and from the local market?

See above.

And the multiple trips by the consumer?

How is driving to a large farmers market any different than driving to a supermarket? Sure, you can't buy paper products there - but there's no reason the farmers market can't be within walking distance of a cluster of other stores.

Economy of scale is very real.

True - but "economy" there refers to the monetary cost to the producer, not the cost to the environment. Mechanized distribution systems are cheap because energy is cheap, and energy is cheap because we have lots of fossil fuels to dig up and burn. But that has nothing to do with cost to the environment, and it's obviously not sustainable in the long run.


What you're arguing is that we went from a more efficient system (local markets) to a less efficient and more costly system (retail grocery stores).

Again, there is more than one meaning to the term "efficient".

You need to crunch some numbers to convince me that's the case. I'm well aware that there are lots of things to look at, but you actually have to look at them to find out the answer.

I'm sure this has been studied. I'll try a quick google search later.

I find it hard to believe that the produce market behaves differently than nearly every other market when it comes to economy of scale.

But again, that's not the claim. And anyway, I'll bet there are tons of exceptions to the naive version of economy of scale you're trying to apply. For example, the average company is much, much smaller than Walmart. Why? Because Walmart's business model doesn't work for every industry or in every place.

[!Kaggen]

You failed to demonstrate your point because you did not differentiate between retailers and local markets in terms of how they actually operate.

For example, are you saying that a local farmer requires no packaging? Most of the produce I buy is just sitting in a bin. It's transported in boxes. How do farmers move the stuff?

A big factor in gas mileage is wind resistance. An 18 wheeler will get 4 to 8 miles per gallon, but they haul probably 10 to 20 times as much as a pickup truck.

How much more spoilage does a farmer have versus the climate controlled system used by retailers?

And what about the very real issue of transporting the same produce to and from the local market? And the multiple trips by the consumer?

Economy of scale is very real. What you're arguing is that we went from a more efficient system (local markets) to a less efficient and more costly system (retail grocery stores). You need to crunch some numbers to convince me that's the case. I'm well aware that there are lots of things to look at, but you actually have to look at them to find out the answer.

I find it hard to believe that the produce market behaves differently than nearly every other market when it comes to economy of scale.

If I sell produce at the side of my field were I harvest it, then I make the money.
If I sell it to the retailer, everyone else makes the money.
You fill in the details ....you are good at it.
Whats so hard to understand about that?
Have you ever seen a farmer as rich as Walmart?
Watch out for those clever farmers their coming....

[sol invictus]

I'm sure this has been studied. I'll try a quick google search later.


Not a study, but illuminating:

http://trulylocal.typepad.com/truly_local/2008/03/local-food-and.html
“A full tractor-trailer hauls about 32,000 pounds of produce. On average, according to the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture at Iowa State University, this food travels about 1,750 miles from farm to market, in trucks that get about 5.5 miles per gallon. That's 320 gallons of fuel to transport 32,000 pounds, or about a gallon of fuel for every 100 pounds of food.

“My farm is an eight-mile round trip from the Abingdon farmers market. Our '94 Toyota pickup gets 15 miles to the gallon, fully loaded, so my trip to and from the market uses just over a half gallon of gas. We take and sell an average of 1,600 pounds of fresh produce every Saturday morning. This works out to 3,200 pounds of food for every gallon of fuel expended. That's 32 times more efficient.”

[portlandatheist]

Not a study, but illuminating:

http://trulylocal.typepad.com/truly_local/2008/03/local-food-and.html

On the other hand, it is possible for local food to have a higher carbon footprint:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/06/opinion/06mcwilliams.html?_r=3&oref=slogin
Lamb raised on New Zealand's clover-choked pastures and shipped 11,000 miles by boat to Britain produced 1,520 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions per ton while British lamb produced 6,280 pounds of carbon dioxide per ton, in part because poorer British pastures force farmers to use feed. In other words, it is four times more energy-efficient for Londoners to buy lamb imported from the other side of the world than to buy it from a producer in their backyard.

[sol invictus]

On the other hand, it is possible for local food to have a higher carbon footprint:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/06/opinion/06mcwilliams.html?_r=3&oref=slogin

Yes, that's a good counterexample. In that case it's important the meat is shipped by boat, which is extremely efficient (but very slow), and that the British sheep in question can't find enough to eat at pasture. But even that example is more complex than might first be apparent, because it evidently assumes that the feed the British lambs consume is raised conventionally, with considerably carbon cost.

Anyway, it's well known that meat is very inefficient when the animals are raised on feed, because only a small fraction fo the energy in the feed actually makes meat. So probably the main lesson to draw from that is that feed-raised meat simply has a very high carbon impact, regardless of transport costs.

[Ziggurat]

But even that example is more complex than might first be apparent, because it evidently assumes that the feed the British lambs consume is raised conventionally, with considerably carbon cost.

Actually, one need not make such an assumption. One only need to consider the carbon footprint of marginal feed production. Whether or not those goats were fed conventional feed or not, their addition or subtraction to the system is going to come out of marginal feed. If they aren't being fed on marginal feed, then that feed will displace marginal feed elsewhere if the goats get removed. Some of that marginal feed may be non-conventional, but most of it probably isn't.

[roger]

Not a study, but illuminating:

http://trulylocal.typepad.com/truly_local/2008/03/local-food-and.html
Yes, and if you read the links that the blog cites, you get things like:Sea-freight emissions are less than half of those associated with airplanes, trains are cleaner than trucks and a tractor-trailer can be a green machine compared with an old pickup
and
the average local food transaction delivers 500 pounds of food per gallon of fuel, five times more efficient than conventional transport.

and

Very few studies support the idea that local-food systems are greener

according to the Newsweek article linked, the answer is "it depends". It depends on carbon footprint of the various forms of transport, the distance of a local farm to the farmers market vs depot, etc. In some cases it is more efficient to get your food from half way around the road, sometimes the local farm. Which sounds about like a 'wash' in my book, which is what I speculated might be the case earlier.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Yes everything is particles or properties thereof .i.e. you see representations, unless you can see these particles and there properties direct!!:eye-poppi
This includes "chemicals" and "hydroponics".
Now whats your point or are you just happy playing dilettante?

I really don't have a dog in this race and thus I would like someone who is enthusiastic and knowledgeable about hydroponics to participate in this thread because hydroponics appears to be so "unnatural" vs the purported "naturalness" of organic farming.

I am unable to parse your answer into something I can understand,

The first principle of organic farming is that it must be soil based.
I am not in the mood to comment on this principle.

This is possibly the nub of my interest. Why soil? Are organic produce more nutritious than hydroponic produce because they are grown in soil?

What I will comment on is experience with hydroponics.
1. Their are no rules and regulations for hydroponics-good, already covered this
2. Hydroponics is completely dependent on off-farm inputs-bad, vulnerability to shortages, strikes, oil cartels and market speculation
3. Hydroponic systems are not robust-bad, ANY small mistake could cost dearly e.g. not maintaining constant pH of hydroponic solution for <24hrs
4. Hydroponic systems cannot re-use any waste they produce- bad, sawdust , used plastic growing bags, dead biomass are all useless on hydroponic farms. In fact they are hazards for disease transfer and need to be removed or burnt-bad again
5. Hydroponic systems are capital intensive to begin-bad, especially in times were cash flow is critical.
5. Hydroponic systems completely ignore any role played by soil micro-organisms in plant growth and health- bad, millions of years of co-evolution are completely ignored e.g. Mycorrhiza which can increase profitability for free if managed
6. Open hydroponics where plants are grown in soils, but all the nutrients are added/managed by irrigation- bad, ground water pollution is common in these systems unless hugely expensive plastic liners etc are placed at depths under the soil. Also excessive watering is required as nutrients are only in solution which can lead to salinity of soils which is extremely costly to rectify.

All in all hydroponics is an unsustainable compromise and only just makes economic sense for high value crops such as cut flowers, tomatoes, cucumbers and lettuce.
The fact that Israeli's use it extensively is much more indicative to the vulnerability of their existence in a desert without oil and in my opinion a much bigger threat than Iranian nuclear bombs to the future of Israel.I think all of these points would be disputed or countered by an advocate of hydroponic farming. I really don't have the time or inclination to do the research necessary to do so. Thus my wish for someone knowledgeable in this field to do so.

[Capsid]

what does "scamming" mean? it's not mentionned in my online dictionnary.

and where is the problem? I took care to underline and emphasize things, please notice it. or what?

I think my text says:

- eat what you truely appreciate, whatever it might be, that is the healthiest attitude a person can have towards food.
- fresh vegetables grown in your region have the most life-energy and so are the healthiest in general [that might be important for ill persons or persons who want to strengten their life energy, I add now to emphasize the difference between this and the precedant statement].
- old varieties of vegetables tend to have a better taste even if their shape is not so regular and the harvest less important.
- the material and immaterial info your food transports will be part of your materiality and immateriality [you can try to tell me that you are purely material and consequently not think nor feel.:rolleyes:, I add]
- everyone should develop a sense concerning which aliments are good for his body and soul.

Scamming means that you are not telling the truth and making this all up to get a response. What you are proposing (you can detect energy by a swinging pendulum) is highly unlikely don't you think?.

[Safe-Keeper]

@Sol: if you're still interested in the environmental logic behind purchasing locally grown foods, there's a thread in the Skeptical podcasts/Skeptoid forums that will interest you;).

* Safe-Keeper is still looking forward to next farmer's market, though :D .

[Uncayimmy]

A local farmer harvests greens by hand, puts them in cardboard boxes (which she'll re-use several times until they fall apart), puts the boxes in a truck, drives to the market a few miles away, sets the boxes up on a table, and sells them to people that drive to the market.

A big farm harvests greens using a machine, packs them in sealed plastic containers containing inert gas, puts those in boxes which they'll never see again, puts those in a large truck which drives them hundreds of miles to a grocery wholesaler or warehouse. From there they may go into smaller trucks for distribution to grocery stores, or they may go into an airplane for transport thousands of miles away, and from there to stores - which people drive to.
Where's the math that shows Farmer A spends X dollars per pound of greens versus Y dollars by Farmer B? I have no doubt that the total expenditure is higher, but the total production is higher as well.

Again, I am being asked to believe that economy of scale doesn't apply here when it does in just about every other business.

Very little if the market is reasonably busy, because the stuff is sold within a few days of harvesting it.
Take any given populated area. The people consume X pounds/tons of produce per year. The grocery stores in that area can provide all of that produce using their "inefficient" methods. At the same time there are a handful of small markets. By definition this is extra work that does not need to be done because the grocery stores could do it all.

So, let's flip the coin - could the local markets supply the population with all the produce they need? I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that they cannot. If they did, they would need to scale up their operations. Do you think they are going to use 10 pick-up trucks or one tractor trailer? Which will be more economical?

How is driving to a large farmers market any different than driving to a supermarket? Sure, you can't buy paper products there - but there's no reason the farmers market can't be within walking distance of a cluster of other stores.
I don't know where you live, but in the places I have lived I cannot see how a farmers market could find adequate and economical space within "walking distance" of a retail grocery store. That kind of space is very expensive.

Thing is, whether we like it or not, people buy all sorts of other goods at the grocery store (chips, soda, bread, canned goods, meat, prepared foods, frozen foods, household items, medicine). The presence of a farmers market does not eliminate that trip.

Therefore, a second trip is required to visit the market. Where I live (Phoenix, AZ), I have several grocery stores within one mile in just about any direction. The nearest farmers market is 10 miles way. If my grocery store stopped selling produce, people in my area would drive literally hundreds of thousands of addtional miles per year for produce.


True - but "economy" there refers to the monetary cost to the producer, not the cost to the environment. Mechanized distribution systems are cheap because energy is cheap, and energy is cheap because we have lots of fossil fuels to dig up and burn. But that has nothing to do with cost to the environment, and it's obviously not sustainable in the long run.

Again, show me the numbers. I feel very confident saying that if an area is already served adequately by a grocery store, then a farmers market is an additional expenditure of energy that does not result in a reduced expenditure of energy in the current infrastructure.

I also feel very confident saying that for any given area it is unlikely that collection of farmers markets could replace what the current infrastructure does without an increased expenditure of energy. Maybe there is a sweet spot where a certain number of farmers markets can actually result in reduced energy consumption in the current infrastructure, but nobody has presented any evidence that this is so.

But again, that's not the claim. And anyway, I'll bet there are tons of exceptions to the naive version of economy of scale you're trying to apply. For example, the average company is much, much smaller than Walmart. Why? Because Walmart's business model doesn't work for every industry or in every place.
My local swimming pool supplies store is a relatively small operation. But you know what? They don't make their own chlorine or manufacture their own parts. Large companies do that because it is far more economical to do it that way. Like a grocery store, they are just the local distributor.

I don't have a "naive" sense of economy of scale simply because there are different scales. The smallest scale in farming is the farmer loading up his stuff and driving it to a local market to sell. The vast majority of business are indeed smaller than Wal Mart, but very few of them operate on such a small scale where one entity produces, ships and retails merchandise. Those that do sell speciality items because the market is not there for large scale production.

In case you haven't noticed, pretty much everybody eats produce. It screams out for economy of scale.

[sol invictus]

according to the Newsweek article linked, the answer is "it depends". It depends on carbon footprint of the various forms of transport, the distance of a local farm to the farmers market vs depot, etc. In some cases it is more efficient to get your food from half way around the road, sometimes the local farm. Which sounds about like a 'wash' in my book, which is what I speculated might be the case earlier.

Hmm... "it depends" is very different from "wash". "It depends" means "better under some circumstances, worse under others - so pay attention."

Where's the math that shows Farmer A spends X dollars per pound of greens versus Y dollars by Farmer B? I have no doubt that the total expenditure is higher, but the total production is higher as well.

Sorry, not sure how that relates. My point is that it's cheaper in dollars per pound to produce greens on a large scale far from population centers - but primarily because energy is cheap in dollars. But cheap in dollars doesn't mean cheap in carbon or sustainable.


Again, I am being asked to believe that economy of scale doesn't apply here when it does in just about every other business.

No you're not - not by me, at any rate.


Take any given populated area. The people consume X pounds/tons of produce per year. The grocery stores in that area can provide all of that produce using their "inefficient" methods. At the same time there are a handful of small markets. By definition this is extra work that does not need to be done because the grocery stores could do it all.

That's nonsensical. Suppose we invented a better, cleaner, cheaper way to power vehicles than internal combustion engines. Will you object that cars and trucks are already doing the job, so using these better vehicles is extra and unnecessary?

So, let's flip the coin - could the local markets supply the population with all the produce they need? I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that they cannot. If they did, they would need to scale up their operations. Do you think they are going to use 10 pick-up trucks or one tractor trailer? Which will be more economical?

That's a complex optimization problem which depends on many factors, so it can't be answered in general.


I don't know where you live, but in the places I have lived I cannot see how a farmers market could find adequate and economical space within "walking distance" of a retail grocery store. That kind of space is very expensive.

Empty parking lots near a grocery store are "expensive"? Have you ever been to a farmers market?

Thing is, whether we like it or not, people buy all sorts of other goods at the grocery store (chips, soda, bread, canned goods, meat, prepared foods, frozen foods, household items, medicine). The presence of a farmers market does not eliminate that trip.

No, but it could be combined with one.

Therefore, a second trip is required to visit the market. Where I live (Phoenix, AZ), I have several grocery stores within one mile in just about any direction. The nearest farmers market is 10 miles way. If my grocery store stopped selling produce, people in my area would drive literally hundreds of thousands of addtional miles per year for produce.

Not if there were more farmers markets. Again, you can't blame a small system for being small, and use that as an argument for keeping it small.


My local swimming pool supplies store is a relatively small operation. But you know what? They don't make their own chlorine or manufacture their own parts. Large companies do that because it is far more economical to do it that way. Like a grocery store, they are just the local distributor.

Chlorine and lettuce don't have much in common. Lettuce is better fresh, it can be produced safely on a very small scale, it exists in huge and delicious variety, and it's relatively difficult and expensive to transport.

And anyway, this argument over efficiency doesn't address the many other excellent reasons people have for choosing local farmers markets. The produce is simply better - it's fresher, there's more variety, and it's tastier. It's more pleasant to buy from locals selling their own products that you get to know than from a supermarket. I like to know where my food comes from and who produces it and how they produce it, just as I like to know who my doctors are. There are all sorts of social aspects to this that go far beyond efficiency arguments.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

And anyway, this argument over efficiency doesn't address the many other excellent reasons people have for choosing local farmers markets. The produce is simply better - it's fresher, there's more variety, and it's tastier.

Really? There are no avocados or bananas at my local "organic" farmers market. Yet plenty of choices at the supermarket. I wonder why?

It's more pleasant to buy from locals selling their own products that you get to know than from a supermarket. I like to know where my food comes from and who produces it and how they produce it, just as I like to know who my doctors are. There are all sorts of social aspects to this that go far beyond efficiency arguments.

Do you buy locally made clothes? Locally made automobiles? Locally made television sets? Do you know your local tailor? If not, why not?

[sol invictus]

Really? There are no avocados or bananas at my local "organic" farmers market. Yet plenty of choices at the supermarket. I wonder why?

Fair point. But on the other side, there are at least 5 varieties of carrots at my farmers market (which is only partially organic, by the way), and they're really tasty and look nice in a salad.


Do you buy locally made clothes?

Sometimes, but it's not often possible. Where it is, it's far superior to anything mass produced, because it's made to fit and to order.


Locally made automobiles? Locally made television sets?

No. But would I, if I knew the people involved and approved of their practices? Absolutely, with no hesitation.

Do you know your local tailor?

Yep. And the one I go to modifies clothes for less than you'd pay at any big store (which would simply farm it out to someone like him anyway). They fit better, last longer, look better. And there's a guy that fixes shoes for very little - cheaper, and much preferable to finding a new pair every time something breaks or wears out on some old favorites.

[Uncayimmy]

Sorry, not sure how that relates. My point is that it's cheaper in dollars per pound to produce greens on a large scale far from population centers - but primarily because energy is cheap in dollars. But cheap in dollars doesn't mean cheap in carbon or sustainable.

I don't disagree. I'm waiting for somebody to show me the numbers. I argue that if it could be done more cheaply - even with cheap energy - they would do it more cheaply. For the most part I equate dollars with energy in this discussion. If it makes you happy, feel free to substitute "energy" for "dollars" - my points remain the same.

That's nonsensical. Suppose we invented a better, cleaner, cheaper way to power vehicles than internal combustion engines. Will you object that cars and trucks are already doing the job, so using these better vehicles is extra and unnecessary?
Your inablity to grasp this concept does not make it nonsensical. My point is really very simple. A UPS truck drives to an office building every day. The energy expenditure per trip varies very little in terms of the load. If we invented a better way to deliver a certain type of package - say a solar powered vehicle - that would only be a benefit if we could replace the UPS truck completely. If we do not, then we have a net increase in energy expenditure to support an additional infrastructure.

Sure, if you look at just one type of package, it is delivered more efficiently. But the system is using more energy. A simpler example is that it's more efficient to heat rolls in a toaster oven. However, if you're already cooking a turkey in the big oven, it's more efficient to toss the rolls in there at the same time. If you want to talk about real-world energy savings, then you have to look at the big picture.

That's a complex optimization problem which depends on many factors, so it can't be answered in general.
I agree. Thus we have a complex system that evolved to be as cheap as possible due to market forces (lets leave out gov't subsidies). Even though energy is cheap, it's still a major component of the operation. This system evolved to replace the old system with small farms and local markets. Now you're telling me that in reality the old system is better? Fine. Prove it, because on its face it seems unlikely.

Empty parking lots near a grocery store are "expensive"? Have you ever been to a farmers market?
Yes. Have you ever been to a grocery store? You seem to have this vision of partly cloudy days with moderate temperatures with great expanses of open parking. I, by contrast, know that parking in many areas is scarce and costs money. I also know that I can shop in my grocery store at night and during thunderstorms. I can also shop all year long.

No, but it could be combined with one.
You're right. A grocery store could operate directly with one farm. But see the above example of the UPS truck. If they do not eliminate trips by their central supplier, then every trip from the farm to the grocery store is an additional trip.

And it's not just that one store. Suppose a distributor hits six grocery stores per day with one tractor trailer. They are located near each other to make the route efficient. Take one store out of the mix. Does the truck drive less distance? In some cases the only difference will be the distance covered across the parking lot.

Does the farmer driving his truck to the grocery store every day increase or decrease total energy expenditure? The answer is obvious.

Not if there were more farmers markets. Again, you can't blame a small system for being small, and use that as an argument for keeping it small.

Why would you choose to use the word blame? The fact is that it is small. If you want to scale it up, fine. Show me the numbers that make it work.


And anyway, this argument over efficiency doesn't address the many other excellent reasons people have for choosing local farmers markets. The produce is simply better - it's fresher, there's more variety, and it's tastier.
I thought we were talking about energy consumption.

[Rolfe]

I like farmers' markets well enough. I just refuse to buy anything labelled "organic".

Simple.

Rolfe.

[sol invictus]

If it makes you happy, feel free to substitute "energy" for "dollars" - my points remain the same.

No they don't. A central part of this is that small farmers can, at least under some circumstances, produce and sell food for a lower cost in energy per pound than larger producers do, even though it's more expensive in dollars or man-hours for them. That's because dollars and liters of oil are not the same thing.

For example, a small farmer could harvest her own vegetables by hand, at zero oil cost, while a big producer uses a machine. The big producer will make more money, but the small producer has a lower carbon footprint per pound.


Your inablity to grasp this concept does not make it nonsensical. My point is really very simple.

I think the disconnect here is that you're arguing about the system as it is now. Most of the time, people aren't so interested in the system as it is now, but rather in how it ought to be. So even if you're correct that closing all the small farms and farmers markets while slightly expanding grocery stores might save a little energy, it's not interesting. What's interesting is the system we could have, and perhaps already do in some places, where small farms are a much bigger part of the system.

This system evolved to replace the old system with small farms and local markets. Now you're telling me that in reality the old system is better? Fine. Prove it, because on its face it seems unlikely.

Why do you think it's an "old" system? Sure, it bears a superficial resemblance to the agricultural system of the past. But even small farmers use modern technology in all sorts of ways that alter things greatly. In fact it's corporate agribusiness that's the old system - it evolved in the 20th century. The movement I'm talking about is quite new.

By the way, one (brand new, as far as I know) model we haven't discussed is CSA (community supported agriculture). Here's how it works - a group of families or individuals each buy a share, generally in the late winter. The farmer uses the money to purchase seeds, equipment, etc., which is a good for the farmer, because her expenses are strongly seasonal and peak at that time. As the season progresses, the farmer delivers a wide variety of perfectly fresh, seasonal crops (sometimes including meat and/or dairy) to a central location, usually once a week, and the families pick up their shares.

That's a very efficient system: the food takes one trip once per week in a medium sized vehicle to a central depot, something equivalent to the last stage (warehouse to store) in a standard distribution system, and the families make one trip to the depot, equivalent to a trip to the store, to pick it up. There's no extra transport involved, and, at least in my experience with this, the distances involved are usually very small.

I've never had better produce than what I got from one such program I was involved in, nor have I ever eaten so healthily. I'd highly recommend checking it out if it exists in your area.

[quarky]

I like farmers' markets well enough. I just refuse to buy anything labelled "organic".

Simple.

Rolfe.

This seems silly. I realize that in your area, and through your work, you have observed unpleasant aspects of organicly grown meat.

What if you had observed something similarly unpleasant, pertaining to an aspect of 'inorganic' agriculture? Do you toss out the baby with the bathwater?

I've never witnessed the type of organic animal husbandry you speak of; actually seen the exact opposite; but I live in a rural, spacious area.
So I believe you, but I wonder why you need to reject organic vegetables, for instance, because some a-hat uses woo to cause animal suffering?

If you had a garden, and things would grow well without pesticides, would you have to add some, just to be able to stomach the produce?

Its a knee-jerk stance.


The carbon footprint line of argument (not Rolfe) going on here seems to be nit-picking and missing a point. Pity about terminology. What about real food vs less-real food? This should super-cede organic vs inorganic...especially in regards to energy. Some people eat a potato; others eat a micro-waveable potato snack with lots of goo added; in a plastic container; requiring a freezer. Its the second choice that is going to be massively less efficient, in terms of energy in/calories out. The organic/inorganic part of the argument is small potatoes, pun intended.

[anor277]

In regards to quarky's post, I might be wrong, but in the U.K. anyone who markets anything "organic" has paid some tithe to the U.K. Soil Association for certification and inspection. The organic industry (worth 2 billion lbs according to Badscience) is one of the most successful applications of branding that I've ever seen, and I wonder if it was an advertizing exec who came up with the name. Indifferent quality fruit and vegies (and meats from sickly, inferior herds) command a premium price if it can boast that organic label. I think that's good enough reason to avoid "organic" foods. (Of course I've seen good quality organic produce but you are necessarily paying for the brand name.)

I know there a few producers who refuse to pay for such "organic" certification, but nevertheless market ecologically sustainable and ethical foods.

[quarky]

In regards to quarky's post, I might be wrong, but in the U.K. anyone who markets anything "organic" has paid some tithe to the U.K. Soil Association for certification and inspection. The organic industry (worth 2 billion lbs according to Badscience) is one of the most successful applications of branding that I've ever seen, and I wonder if it was an advertizing exec who came up with the name. Indifferent quality fruit and vegies (and meats from sickly, inferior herds) command a premium price if it can boast that organic label. I think that's good enough reason to avoid "organic" foods. (Of course I've seen good quality organic produce but you are necessarily paying for the brand name.)

I know there a few producers who refuse to pay for such "organic" certification, but nevertheless market ecologically sustainable and ethical foods.

There have only been 2 or 3 times in my life when I've felt a patriotic 'buzz' about being an "American". The war in Vietnam wasn't one of them.

But this is.

Back here, in the U.S.A., 100% of my experience with organic/inorganic has been this:

Organic growers are compassionate, less vicious capitalistic, enviornmentally aware humans that live on the land they farm; have parties there with their c.s.a. clients; pay their help better wages; tend to play guitar; help the guy down the road who's house burnt down, and so forth.

Its really weird for me to try to relate to this evil thing; organic agriculture.
Plus, i grew up in orchard country, and watched the water table destroyed by stupid use of pesticides and herbicides; watched as an agrarian community, known for its awesome fruit production, even before 1800, when all ag. was organic, come up with the highest cancer rates in Pennsylvania, from the foolish application of organic chemicals.

Yeah, the term organic sucks. The organic chemicals, most banned now, and wisely so, have no relation to the stupid term 'organic'. Being an ex-organic chemist really makes this conversation troublesome.
Its all anecdotal. I've had the exact opposite experience as Rolfe.
I lived on land (Adam's County, Pa.) that I owned and farmed; grew fruit; not hogs; cows; chickens; and our well water, as well as all of our neighbors, was so contaminated with organic chemical residue from big orchard spray schedules, that we were advised, strongly, by the E.P.A., to not even shower with it.

So, because of my age; background; education...this is an almost surreal thread. I've witnessed, first hand, the destruction of an eco-system, through inorganic agriculture (oddly enough, using organic chemicals foolishly) in an area that was built on the fabulous climate for fruit; back when apple juice (organicly grown, of course) was the most popular beverage in America...and there were over 300 varieties of apples grown on my land, before Abe Lincoln freed the freaking slaves.

Hopefully someone can grok my paradoxical frustration with various pendants and nit-pickers that wouldn't recognize a northern spy from a macintosh; that can't tell a benzene ring from an ant-acid; that have no intrest in entymology; no clue, mostly, god-bless, about a single ***** thing related to the freaking food you eat!

(Um, it sorta pisses me off. Its one of those zones where skeptics actually become woo-mongering did-*****.)

hello?

[Uncayimmy]

No they don't. A central part of this is that small farmers can, at least under some circumstances, produce and sell food for a lower cost in energy per pound than larger producers do, even though it's more expensive in dollars or man-hours for them. That's because dollars and liters of oil are not the same thing.
So you keep saying. Show me the numbers. Really, is that so much to ask?

For example, a small farmer could harvest her own vegetables by hand, at zero oil cost, while a big producer uses a machine. The big producer will make more money, but the small producer has a lower carbon footprint per pound.
Her as in a singular her? Or does she hire a group of people who ride bicycles to her farm and do it by hand?

I think the disconnect here is that you're arguing about the system as it is now.
Excuse me for trying to discuss the real world.

Most of the time, people aren't so interested in the system as it is now, but rather in how it ought to be.
It sounds more like you are more interested about how it should have been because how it ought to be must by definition fight a battle against as it is now. I'm not going to pretend that we get to go back in time and do it all over again.

If you want to change the system to one that uses less energy (smaller carbon footprint, cheaper, whatever), you need to prove two things: 1) that the new system does things more efficiently and 2) that the new system replaces enough of the old system to give a net benefit. Like I said, a toaster oven heats rolls using less energy, but if I'm already cooking a turkey, I would be wasting energy if I turned it on.

I'm not convinced that if we magically switched to a farmers market paradigm overnight that it would ultimately use less energy. In regards to the second point as it stands now, I am firmly convinced that the farmer's market local to me results in a net increase in energy consumption compared to putting the same produce into the existing supply chain. Why? Because it hasn't changed what the local grocery stores do and because it requires additional driving for customers.

Why do you think it's an "old" system?
Maybe because mankind was growing and selling produce long before the first machines were built?

Sure, it bears a superficial resemblance to the agricultural system of the past. But even small farmers use modern technology in all sorts of ways that alter things greatly. In fact it's corporate agribusiness that's the old system - it evolved in the 20th century. The movement I'm talking about is quite new.
Great! I look forward to reading their detailed analysis of how their methods consume less energy. I mean, they have crunched the numbers, right? This new movement is not just about feeling good and eating tasty lettuce, yeh?

By the way, one (brand new, as far as I know) model we haven't discussed is CSA (community supported agriculture). Here's how it works - a group of families or individuals each buy a share, generally in the late winter. The farmer uses the money to purchase seeds, equipment, etc., which is a good for the farmer, because her expenses are strongly seasonal and peak at that time. As the season progresses, the farmer delivers a wide variety of perfectly fresh, seasonal crops (sometimes including meat and/or dairy) to a central location, usually once a week, and the families pick up their shares.

That's a very efficient system: the food takes one trip once per week in a medium sized vehicle to a central depot, something equivalent to the last stage (warehouse to store) in a standard distribution system, and the families make one trip to the depot, equivalent to a trip to the store, to pick it up. There's no extra transport involved, and, at least in my experience with this, the distances involved are usually very small.
Did you still go to the grocery store? If so, then every trip by each family was an additional use of energy. You can only call it more efficient if the energy consumption saved by not using the existing distribution system was greater than the hundreds or even thousands of trips you and the other families made.

Otherwise, all you did was fire up the toaster oven while the turkey was roasting in the big oven.

I've never had better produce than what I got from one such program I was involved in, nor have I ever eaten so healthily. I'd highly recommend checking it out if it exists in your area.
I live in a freaking desert, but I get irrigation to my home. My lemons, tangerines, oranges and grapefruit taste great. My lettuce was good. Cucumbers? Not so much. Tomatoes? Meh. Melons? Yummy.

[Eos of the Eons]

I boycott organic because the organics slander the non-organics quite hypocritically. If they stuck to the facts, then I might trust their wares. However, they use dishonesty to sell their wares, and that is just unethical. Organic food IS NOT more nutritious, and it is NOT "healthier" and is not "chemical-free". If they could leave all the dishonesty behind and make sure their stuff doesn't rot or die hideously, then I might start to give it a chance (as long as it doesn't cost more than the rest of the perfectly good food).

Plus, i grew up in orchard country, and watched the water table destroyed by stupid use of pesticides and herbicides; watched as an agrarian community, known for its awesome fruit production, even before 1800, when all ag. was organic, come up with the highest cancer rates in Pennsylvania, from the foolish application of organic chemicals.


Water table destroyed? Really? Cancer? Really? You were alive in 1800???

A lot of accusations, but no evidence. Typical. Unless you have some, of course. Linkies to before and after pics, and evidence that the chemicals caused the increased cancer rates and not something like people living to be old enough to get things like cancer.

[sol invictus]

So you keep saying. Show me the numbers. Really, is that so much to ask?

I already gave you some. But we can do some more, if you like.

Let's take the example of my CSA. The farm was around 10 miles from the depot. I'd say our box weighed around 20 lbs, and there were maybe 30 shares. So the farmer transported 600 lbs of food 20 miles roundtrip, so at worst about 1 gallon of gas for 300 lbs of food.

Everyone I knew in the CSA lived in town, not more than 2 miles away from the depot. Many people walked or biked there. Taking an average drive of 1 mile, or 2 miles round trip, means at worst 1/10 of a gallon for 20 lbs, or 1 gallon every 200 lbs. That totals up to 1 gallon per 120 lbs, much less than the 1 gallon per 50 lbs in the estimate for mainstream vegetable transport (and by the way, I've seen estimates like a gallon per pound for corn or grain-fed conventional beef).

And that's worst case - in truth, both the farmer and the people driving to pick up this food often had other errands in town and might have needed to drive there anyway. As for going to the supermarket, I'm sure I took at least one less trip per week than I would have without the CSA. And we ate far more vegetables and far less meat, which (given what I've been seeing) is probably much more important than anything else when it comes to energy efficiency.

Maybe because mankind was growing and selling produce long before the first machines were built?

What's that got to do with anything? We're not talking about abolishing machines.

It looks to me now like this argument over transportation efficiency is pretty much irrelevant, because by far the biggest factor must be grain-fed meat. If it's really as bad as that - 1 gallon of gas per pound of beef (http://www.sierraclub.org/sustainable_consumption/food_factsheet.asp) - the only thing that matters is reducing grain-fed meat consumption. And guess what - small farms can do that by using pasture, but it's totally out of the question for huge dense ones, like the ones where nearly all beef and pork is raised in industrialized countries.

[quarky]

people are going to eat "whatever", forever. including you, eos.

it is we; the "not-so-hungry-have-a-roof-and hook-up; fridge folks, that have the privledgehonor of deciding what we will or won't eat...even beyond species! used to be some dietary dividing lines, wooish ones; can't eat goat; good with pig; no pig, okay for cloven hooves mon.wed, fri,; no shellfish, too close to selfish; nothing that looks or tastes like the devil, by god, in whatever trailor you live in.

for ****s sake, folks, get real and be glad for what you can eat; tune in to it more if you need a hobby; you'll be dead soon enough and there's no reason or time to get righteous about fine points within the larger issue of food:

do you want to kill animals that you know by name?
and eat them?

are you willing to confess that an f-wad of the food being eaten in America is crap; expensive crap; with butt-loads of waste. Organic bullcrap, either way you go at it.
Its not about a conspiracy theory.
Its about eating the berries in the woods; gathering the nuts that fall; eating them.
Making however slight a connection between you and what goes into your mouth.

Is it good to have a relationship with your food?
Hippies think so.
I'm not sure what i think.

ok, i think this:

its not good to have a denial-type relationship with your food.
like, if someone asked what did you eat today, would you tell them everything?
Would you shield your obesity, and feign victim; eat the well-advertized swill, or not?

That's the organic question.

anyway, its kind of romantic to grow a tomatoe in a city, in a bucket, on a roof. and eat it with someone that gave you the bucket; and not even feel any pain from killing this live thingy.

um, why, quark?

because, tomato seed can survive the trip through your gut. when you compost your own ca-ca, cherry tomatoes will emerge, if you eat any raw tomatoes.

yup,

a tomatoe plant actually wants you to Eat Its Babies!!!
a sheep; less-so.

[Prometheus]

I participated in a CSA program for a year.

In my case, the distribution center happened to be right on my way home from work, so it actually did save me some travel. During the harvest season, I wound up needing to go to the supermarket about once every three weeks, while I went there once a week during the months when the CSA was not active.

I also did a rough cost comparison once, by taking an inventory of my share for a week and then purchasing the same produce at the supermarket. The supermarket worked out to slightly less than double the cost. HOWEVER: this was the first year this CSA was in operation. The following year, they nearly doubled the share price and reduced the amount of produce per share, so it seems that the cost savings I experienced were not sustainable.

The real difference for me was that participating in the CSA program actually did motivate me to alter my dietary habits for the better during the season. I had salad and homemade soup at least twice a day, whereas I'm normally mostly a carnivore. I ate a lot of veggies that I normally don't buy (beet greens, carrot greens), and the share was large enough that it was very difficult for my family to actually use all the vegetables before the next week's share came home. I wound up buying a juicer so that each week when the new share was ready I could just juice all the previous week's remaining fruits and veggies and drink them before picking up the new share.

They never used the word 'organic', and I never asked. Mostly the quality was about the same as what I could get from the supermarket, except for the tomatoes which were much, MUCH tastier.

The biggest downside for me was that I couldn't choose the contents of each week's share, and there was always too much of something and not enough of another. Another drawback was that I really, really like a lot of produce that is not grown locally, so I had to forgo many of my favourites except for every third week when I went to the supermarket. YMMV.

[!Kaggen]

I really don't have a dog in this race and thus I would like someone who is enthusiastic and knowledgeable about hydroponics to participate in this thread because hydroponics appears to be so "unnatural" vs the purported "naturalness" of organic farming.

I am unable to parse your answer into something I can understand,



This is possibly the nub of my interest. Why soil? Are organic produce more nutritious than hydroponic produce because they are grown in soil?

I think all of these points would be disputed or countered by an advocate of hydroponic farming. I really don't have the time or inclination to do the research necessary to do so. Thus my wish for someone knowledgeable in this field to do so.

I am knowledgeable in this field.
I am a soil scientist after all.
I have consulted to the biggest hydroponic tomato farmer in South AFrica who produced both hydroponic and "organic" tomatoes.
I have consulted to the largest tomatoe producer in the Southern Hemisphere. They only grow tomatoes in soil and they use the Japanese system I have mentioned before.
I have done experimental work at university using hydroponic systems.
I have visited "organic" hydroponic tomato producers in Europe.
I live in South Africa by the way.

The soil issue is called evolution. I will let you figure out the rest.
In my experience advocates of a "farming system", no matter what system, are not farmers.
Go figure.

[!Kaggen]

In case you haven't noticed, pretty much everybody eats produce. It screams out for economy of scale.

In case you haven't noticed farmers grow produce.
So I suggest, the most efficient method is for farmers and eaters is to get together and exchange goods. This way we eliminate all the carbon footprint in between and the scale of the economy is maximized (All farmer A producers is eaten by eater B).
In case you are still not convinced go do some traveling to countries were small farms are the norm (Japan, Italy, Corsica, Sardinia). You will find the scale of these farmer/eater economies is very much maximized and they have the oldest active populations.
The fact that other countries are experimenting with bigger is better, obesity, lifestyle sickness and medicare is just fine, but I am opting out of this experiment and many others are, thank you very much.

[quarky]

I'm very close to declaring a religion:

I believe in photosynthesis!

I'm a fusion junky, not content to wait for the pissy earth-bound version.

photosynthesis, from the sun; our sun; our hippy sun; our lsd sun; our mormon sun; our nazi sun; our jacko-jackson sun; black-hole-sun-sun sorta sun; whatever.

ok.

[quarky]

(I love you, quarky, more gooder than pepsi-doo.)

[Uncayimmy]

In case you haven't noticed farmers grow produce.
So I suggest, the most efficient method is for farmers and eaters is to get together and exchange goods. This way we eliminate all the carbon footprint in between and the scale of the economy is maximized (All farmer A producers is eaten by eater B).
What a great idea! Too bad nobody in Chicago will get any oranges. And here in Phoenix I won't get any wheat. Unless, of course, we're all willing to drive thousands of miles. My car gets 25mpg on the highway while a tractor trailer only gets about 6. The fact that it can haul 80,000 pounds at a time is beside the point. People in Chicago should drive to California every week to get their oranges. It would be stupid to load up a truck and haul tons of oranges to Chicago, right?

In case you are still not convinced go do some traveling to countries were small farms are the norm (Japan, Italy, Corsica, Sardinia). You will find the scale of these farmer/eater economies is very much maximized and they have the oldest active populations.
So, you can show me actual numbers proving that their method in fact uses less energy from ground to stomach than the system in the USA? Wonderful! Let's see it. I am looking forward to reading a detailed analysis. I mean, you have crunched all the numbers and know for a fact that the systems you describe use less energy overall than the distribution system used in the USA, right?

I mean, you're not looking at how efficient a toaster oven is for cooking rolls and forgetting that you have a turkey in a big oven that could also heat the rolls with no additional energy requirements, right?

Show me the numbers. I'm willing to listen.

The fact that other countries are experimenting with bigger is better, obesity, lifestyle sickness and medicare is just fine, but I am opting out of this experiment and many others are, thank you very much.
What does obesity have to do with the carbon footprint per pound of produce?

[quarky]

don't make me hurt you

[Rolfe]

Pay money for farm produce to people who are actively promoting homoeopathy?

Even if I know for sure they aren't one of the "leave it to suffer all medicines are evil chemicals" brigade, in a word, NO.

Rolfe.

[Satra]

I read through your posts (I don't understand everything so it's not really recreative^^).

I wonder why different persons say "organic" approach - and let me replace this word by: conscient approach should be worthless because producers or service providers choosing - with more or less ethical conviction and less or more sense for lucrative vogues - to write "organic" on their banner
1. can't provide you ALL the comfort conventional do, partly by principle, partly because they're at the beginning and have to develop archaical methods (like with the airplane which took much more hours and 3 stops to refill the tank to go somewhere).
2. may approach -very few- questions a way that may be worse than in conventional approach
3. have collegues being black sheep (that means: not much better than conventionals).


1. How much comfort one needs, everyone has to decide himself. The time I nourrished from regional seasonal vegetables was the one I took the most intense pleasure to eat. I didn't have oranges, bananas etc, and I didn't feel like needing any. If I seriously had, I would have taken some elsewhere, no problem. I don't have dogmatic approach.
With the plane it's really an ethical question "should I support this service provider and hope that that will create facilities to find new ways with less "disadvantages"?" By the way, it may be a way to get aware of time, come out of daily haste, if someone is able to accept and get in harmony with that.
Some people would consider it as an effictive spiritual exercise^^.

2. I had a conversation with a local winegrower. We came to speak about ecological approach. He said, organical approach was nothing but nonsense. Why, I asked. He said, because, for example EU-organic-directive allows to use cupper to I-don't-remember-what. And cupper is (as he said) toxic for the soil. I said: "Oh. Yes. That's not ok at all then! That's obviously an error!
How many toxical agents are used in conventional agriculture?" He did not answer. So I said "but, I guess, that won't be the only error of organic directives? Would you tell me more about it, please?"
I waited some time, but he wouldn't answer, so I kindly objected that
a) I prefer an agriculture with a minimum employ of toxical things / things in a toxical dosage
b) everyone, organical or not, should -like him;)- use his brain to find what makes sense and what not. Everyone. I use to reflect before and after acting, partly while also^^. Everyone may and decide what is good and what not. And change things.

If I was a cook and wasn't able to make a perfect lasagne I'd serve something different and or learn to do it. I certainly won't get cheap frozen lasagne and serve it to my guests. Because then I'd exchange something suboptimal against something really bad. That makes no sense.

3. Black sheep exist everywhere. Develop a sense for perceiving what is good and what not, and you have sourrounded the problem an elegant way:p.

[Satra]

Oh, dear Rolfe, I do not have the foggiest notion what horrific experience you had with homeopathy.

But I'm sorry to tell you that I tried it out and it works. One time I was seriously ill (couldn't say A word, coughed, felt to weak to stand upright more than 2 min, high fever.) the doctor told me to stay in bed for 2 weeks. I was in a situation I really couldn't accept this. I didn't take his medication because I know natural methods to low the fever and don't take antibiotics.
Someone gave me homeopathy (I never had tried that before), I behaved an entirely appropriate way staying in bed for 3 days and having someone preparing me tea from appropriate herbs the first 2 and fresh veggie-pottage the 3. the fourth I stood up, ate normally and felt fine besides of being weak. the sixth I returned to work.

My family generally takes this and other alternative remedies instead of conventional medicine and are quite fine with it. It even works on animals (do they expect to get better when taking it?).


Homeopathy works on frequency. everything is frequency. even you. you believe to be solid, but in fact you're body is nothing but a number of atoms with a very little mass rotating around themselves and much much much space in between. If you'd assemble your atoms without the space inbetween, you could not see that with your eyes.
as far as I heard.:)

[Mashuna]

Oh, dear Rolfe, I do not have the foggiest notion what horrific experience you had with homeopathy.

But I'm sorry to tell you that I tried it out and it works. One time I was seriously ill (couldn't say A word, coughed, felt to weak to stand upright more than 2 min, high fever.) the doctor told me to stay in bed for 2 weeks. I was in a situation I really couldn't accept this. I didn't take his medication because I know natural methods to low the fever and don't take antibiotics.
Someone gave me homeopathy (I never had tried that before), I behaved an entirely appropriate way staying in bed for 3 days and having someone preparing me tea from appropriate herbs the first 2 and fresh veggie-pottage the 3. the fourth I stood up, ate normally and felt fine besides of being weak. the sixth I returned to work.

My family generally takes this and other alternative remedies instead of conventional medicine and are quite fine with it. It even works on animals (do they expect to get better when taking it?).


Homeopathy works on frequency. everything is frequency. even you. you believe to be solid, but in fact you're body is nothing but a number of atoms with a very little mass rotating around themselves and much much much space in between. If you'd assemble your atoms without the space inbetween, you could not see that with your eyes.
as far as I heard.:)

Oh dear. Now I'm going to have to back slowly away from the upcoming thread explosion.

Where did I leave that popcorn?

[!Kaggen]

There have only been 2 or 3 times in my life when I've felt a patriotic 'buzz' about being an "American". The war in Vietnam wasn't one of them.

But this is.

Back here, in the U.S.A., 100% of my experience with organic/inorganic has been this:

Organic growers are compassionate, less vicious capitalistic, enviornmentally aware humans that live on the land they farm; have parties there with their c.s.a. clients; pay their help better wages; tend to play guitar; help the guy down the road who's house burnt down, and so forth.

Its really weird for me to try to relate to this evil thing; organic agriculture.
Plus, i grew up in orchard country, and watched the water table destroyed by stupid use of pesticides and herbicides; watched as an agrarian community, known for its awesome fruit production, even before 1800, when all ag. was organic, come up with the highest cancer rates in Pennsylvania, from the foolish application of organic chemicals.

Yeah, the term organic sucks. The organic chemicals, most banned now, and wisely so, have no relation to the stupid term 'organic'. Being an ex-organic chemist really makes this conversation troublesome.
Its all anecdotal. I've had the exact opposite experience as Rolfe.
I lived on land (Adam's County, Pa.) that I owned and farmed; grew fruit; not hogs; cows; chickens; and our well water, as well as all of our neighbors, was so contaminated with organic chemical residue from big orchard spray schedules, that we were advised, strongly, by the E.P.A., to not even shower with it.

So, because of my age; background; education...this is an almost surreal thread. I've witnessed, first hand, the destruction of an eco-system, through inorganic agriculture (oddly enough, using organic chemicals foolishly) in an area that was built on the fabulous climate for fruit; back when apple juice (organicly grown, of course) was the most popular beverage in America...and there were over 300 varieties of apples grown on my land, before Abe Lincoln freed the freaking slaves.

Hopefully someone can grok my paradoxical frustration with various pendants and nit-pickers that wouldn't recognize a northern spy from a macintosh; that can't tell a benzene ring from an ant-acid; that have no intrest in entymology; no clue, mostly, god-bless, about a single ***** thing related to the freaking food you eat!

(Um, it sorta pisses me off. Its one of those zones where skeptics actually become woo-mongering did-*****.)

hello?

people are going to eat "whatever", forever. including you, eos.

it is we; the "not-so-hungry-have-a-roof-and hook-up; fridge folks, that have the privledgehonor of deciding what we will or won't eat...even beyond species! used to be some dietary dividing lines, wooish ones; can't eat goat; good with pig; no pig, okay for cloven hooves mon.wed, fri,; no shellfish, too close to selfish; nothing that looks or tastes like the devil, by god, in whatever trailor you live in.

for ****s sake, folks, get real and be glad for what you can eat; tune in to it more if you need a hobby; you'll be dead soon enough and there's no reason or time to get righteous about fine points within the larger issue of food:

do you want to kill animals that you know by name?
and eat them?

are you willing to confess that an f-wad of the food being eaten in America is crap; expensive crap; with butt-loads of waste. Organic bullcrap, either way you go at it.
Its not about a conspiracy theory.
Its about eating the berries in the woods; gathering the nuts that fall; eating them.
Making however slight a connection between you and what goes into your mouth.

Is it good to have a relationship with your food?
Hippies think so.
I'm not sure what i think.

ok, i think this:

its not good to have a denial-type relationship with your food.
like, if someone asked what did you eat today, would you tell them everything?
Would you shield your obesity, and feign victim; eat the well-advertized swill, or not?

That's the organic question.

anyway, its kind of romantic to grow a tomatoe in a city, in a bucket, on a roof. and eat it with someone that gave you the bucket; and not even feel any pain from killing this live thingy.

um, why, quark?

because, tomato seed can survive the trip through your gut. when you compost your own ca-ca, cherry tomatoes will emerge, if you eat any raw tomatoes.

yup,

a tomatoe plant actually wants you to Eat Its Babies!!!
a sheep; less-so.

Well said quarky well said.

I have a Oxford Professor/Skeptic brother that would very at home on this forum spouting hot air all day long, but completely lost in a garden let alone a farm. Last time we spoke about this subject he said

"Of course there is good evidence that organic farming methods produce better quality food than high intensity methods. That is why we by lots of
organically produced food."

I wonder how :confused: he is now.

He smirks at his neighbours who grow all their own food in an allotment on the weekends/holidays whilst he and his family sit and read about the world in the comfort of their home or French retreat. Of course they are very happy to go down to the local french farmers markets on Saturday mornings and buy quality food direct from the farmers and go for works and cycling trips in the romantic french countryside in between the reading about how things work.

The irony of only believing what you read and ignoring everything else in front of your very eyes is mindbogglingly.

Its this type of deceitfulness which needs some real critical analysis.

[Rolfe]

I behaved an entirely appropriate way staying in bed for 3 days and having someone preparing me tea from appropriate herbs the first 2 and fresh veggie-pottage the 3. the fourth I stood up, ate normally and felt fine besides of being weak. the sixth I returned to work.


You know what? Staying in bed with someone else looking after you and feeding you cures most of what ails you. I see no need to postulate that shaken-up sugar pills have any unnatural physiological effects, to explain that observation.

Rolfe.

[ntech]

I believe the larger issue is with eating processed foods versus either of those. It is the processed foods that are just boxes and bags of chemicals.

On the line in the food stores I see people with carts full of 100% fake food. I also see people sit down to watch a movie or game and go through a large bag of chips, consuming enough calories for days. This seems to be the norm in the US and explains the epidemic of overweight and obese people.

[!Kaggen]

On another note about quality and using the "organic" label for marketing purposes.

The most important food industry as far as quality is concerned is the wine industry.
The amount of wine producers around the world that use organic and specifically bio-dynamic techniques is growing daily.
They do this without ANY reference to it on their product or in the press. They are not even interested in certification and avoid all publicity on the subject, specifically to avoid the kind of press coverage associated with the OP.
Why would they do this?
It serves no purpose other than because there wines taste better.

Also check out Heston Blumenthal, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heston_Blumenthal. Owner of The Fat Duck, 3-star Michelin since 2004
He is one of the most interesting chefs in the world who is only interested in one thing, how food tastes/smells/feels. He is one of very few chefs that collaborate with scientists.
A little publicized fact about Mr. Blumenthal's choice of ingredients, and he blind tastes everything, is biodynamic produce. He does not care less how the stuff was grown or brought up, he only measures the taste/texture/smell of his ingredients before he includes it in a recipe.

[!Kaggen]

In regards to quarky's post, I might be wrong, but in the U.K. anyone who markets anything "organic" has paid some tithe to the U.K. Soil Association for certification and inspection. The organic industry (worth 2 billion lbs according to Badscience) is one of the most successful applications of branding that I've ever seen, and I wonder if it was an advertizing exec who came up with the name. Indifferent quality fruit and vegies (and meats from sickly, inferior herds) command a premium price if it can boast that organic label. I think that's good enough reason to avoid "organic" foods. (Of course I've seen good quality organic produce but you are necessarily paying for the brand name.)

I know there a few producers who refuse to pay for such "organic" certification, but nevertheless market ecologically sustainable and ethical foods.

Excellent observation.

A little anecdote.
There is this "ethical" bank in Europe called Triodos.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triodos_Bank

Do the research, you will find they control the imported "organic" fresh produce industry on the retail level in the UK and Europe.
I have first hand experience of how they did not want more "organic" produce than they could control. They are not interested in ecologically sustainable and ethical food, only control.
Then again any business empire has this principle in mind :mad: apart from the ubiquitous "economies of scale" principle.
Another good reason to buy local, direct from the farmer.
And honestly if you they cannot grow oranges near you, find something else to eat or move.

[Aepervius]

Not a study, but illuminating:

http://trulylocal.typepad.com/truly_local/2008/03/local-food-and.html

This ignore one simple fact : population density and produce production place. You have to do far more than a few mile to go from any big city center to the next farmer market or to the producing fields. Secondly not all farmer produce everything, and many stuff are actually not even growable locally. So if you are ready to give up on , say, citrus, banana, chocolate, and I pass many other , yeah sure, buy only locally. Don't complain when after a while your fare is a bit tad too repetitive. Finally a big factor is season. Sure you can grow locally stuff. And in winter ? The produce which grow in winter are even more limited (I can't even SEE some of them in picture without remembering eating those day after day after day...).

Finally AGAIN this might be an argument FOR locally grown food, and for starving of a lot of the population as city center then get not enough to eat, but not an argument for organic food, as those are produced about as far away and in the same or similar enough condition as any other mass production.

[Aepervius]

@quarky

Organic growers are compassionate, less vicious capitalistic, enviornmentally aware humans that live on the land they farm; have parties there with their c.s.a. clients; pay their help better wages; tend to play guitar; help the guy down the road who's house burnt down, and so forth.

Nice mythos. 50% of the organic stuff is grown by agro corp. 20% comes from China. That I got from P&T. Most of the rest is done by no non-sense farmer which are their to MAKE money, I know enough of them in my parents surrounding which abandoned classic produce to go organic BECAUSE they made more money. When you get paid dozen of cents for a kg of tomatoe, but more than an euro for the same kg organic, and you don't need to change much or even anything to your production cost, you just RELABEL. And guess what ? they are LEGALLY producing orgnic stuff with all the pesticide and I pass other stuff even more disgusting. There is a very small percent of what would be best described is ideologist and that is the picture-book rosy glass one you describe. They are slowly being phased out as all ideologist do sooner or later (age, attrition, or change of mind, back to reality etc...).

Really quarky, if you are not sarcastic, go beyond the myth.

[dogjones]

I reckon Satra is a drunk person who is taking the piss

[sol invictus]

This ignore one simple fact : population density and produce production place. You have to do far more than a few mile to go from any big city center to the next farmer market or to the producing fields.

In the biggest US city, New York, there are 30 or 40 farmers markets in the summer, with 15 or so open year round. That means a huge number of people - tens of millions, probably - are within 1/2 mile of one either at work or from home or both. Since the distances are so small and few people drive there anyway, that's basically zero carbon cost on that end. The tradeoff is the farmers have to drive farther. But since the markets are so busy they can bring in a large quantity of food, and they probably truck-pool. So I suspect the efficiency is pretty decent.


Secondly not all farmer produce everything, and many stuff are actually not even growable locally. So if you are ready to give up on , say, citrus, banana, chocolate, and I pass many other , yeah sure, buy only locally.

That's a good point. But I'm certainly not advocating we only buy locally - the example of British versus New Zealand lamb is a good one, and as you say some foods simply cannot be produced in some places.


Finally AGAIN this might be an argument FOR locally grown food, and for starving of a lot of the population as city center then get not enough to eat, but not an argument for organic food, as those are produced about as far away and in the same or similar enough condition as any other mass production.

Yep - this is separate from the debate over organic standards.

[pgwenthold]

“My farm is an eight-mile round trip from the Abingdon farmers market. Our '94 Toyota pickup gets 15 miles to the gallon, fully loaded, so my trip to and from the market uses just over a half gallon of gas. We take and sell an average of 1,600 pounds of fresh produce every Saturday morning. This works out to 3,200 pounds of food for every gallon of fuel expended. That's 32 times more efficient.”

Really. So how many farms are you going to put within 8 miles of New York City?

[pgwenthold]

There have only been 2 or 3 times in my life when I've felt a patriotic 'buzz' about being an "American". The war in Vietnam wasn't one of them.

But this is.

Back here, in the U.S.A., 100% of my experience with organic/inorganic has been this:

Organic growers are compassionate, less vicious capitalistic, enviornmentally aware humans that live on the land they farm; have parties there with their c.s.a. clients; pay their help better wages; tend to play guitar; help the guy down the road who's house burnt down, and so forth.

While mine is completely opposite. The organic farmers I know (dairy farmers) are idiots who couldn't manage a conventional dairy herd, and so went to "organic" because they saw the opportunities for bigger profits. They don't give a rat's patooty about the environment (all global warming denialists), but are pretty much in line with all the anti-science woo around (one had 13 kids, with 12 of them born at home because doctors are all part of an evil conspiracy to kill us)

See Rolfe's comments about the anti-vaccine guidelines for organic farming - that's right in line with the attitude of the folks I know.

[sol invictus]

Really. So how many farms are you going to put within 8 miles of New York City?

Did you bother to read my post?

In the biggest US city, New York, there are 30 or 40 farmers markets in the summer, with 15 or so open year round. That means a huge number of people - tens of millions, probably - are within 1/2 mile of one either at work or from home or both. Since the distances are so small and few people drive there anyway, that's basically zero carbon cost on that end. The tradeoff is the farmers have to drive farther. But since the markets are so busy they can bring in a large quantity of food, and they probably truck-pool. So I suspect the efficiency is pretty decent.

[!Kaggen]

While mine is completely opposite. The organic farmers I know (dairy farmers) are idiots who couldn't manage a conventional dairy herd, and so went to "organic" because they saw the opportunities for bigger profits. They don't give a rat's patooty about the environment (all global warming denialists), but are pretty much in line with all the anti-science woo around (one had 13 kids, with 12 of them born at home because doctors are all part of an evil conspiracy to kill us)

See Rolfe's comments about the anti-vaccine guidelines for organic farming - that's right in line with the attitude of the folks I know.

What's so unique about this experience?
Good lawyers, bad lawyers
Good politicians, bad politicians
Good scientists, bad scientists
Good docters, bad doctors.
Good vets, bad vets
Good farmers, bad farmers
big deal, its no measure of a profession to point to the rot
Its much more constructive to encourage and support the good ones
and remember that individuals hide behind their professions

[pgwenthold]

Did you bother to read my post?

Yeah. 30 - 40 whole farmers markets in New York!!!!! Woo-hoo!!!!

Assuming that each can support, say 10 000 people, that means that almost a half a million people can get their food at farmer's markets in New York. About 10% of the population.

Aside from the fact that no farmer's market can support 10K people.

And the whole "truck pool" is getting laughable.

What the heck do you think a semi-load is if not a "truck pool"?

So your proposed solution for feeding New York is to have large trucks haul in produce from places farther away.

Got it.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Organic growers are compassionate, less vicious capitalistic, enviornmentally aware humans that live on the land they farm; have parties there with their c.s.a. clients; pay their help better wages; tend to play guitar; help the guy down the road who's house burnt down, and so forth.

Everyone at Dole Foods and/or Cargill plays the guitar? Or just some of them? I find it unlikely that every employee lives on the land they farm - there would be no room for the crops.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Oh, dear Rolfe, I do not have the foggiest notion what horrific experience you had with homeopathy.

But I'm sorry to tell you that I tried it out and it works. One time I was seriously ill (couldn't say A word, coughed, felt to weak to stand upright more than 2 min, high fever.) the doctor told me to stay in bed for 2 weeks. I was in a situation I really couldn't accept this. I didn't take his medication because I know natural methods to low the fever and don't take antibiotics.
Someone gave me homeopathy (I never had tried that before), I behaved an entirely appropriate way staying in bed for 3 days and having someone preparing me tea from appropriate herbs the first 2 and fresh veggie-pottage the 3. the fourth I stood up, ate normally and felt fine besides of being weak. the sixth I returned to work.

My family generally takes this and other alternative remedies instead of conventional medicine and are quite fine with it. It even works on animals (do they expect to get better when taking it?).


Homeopathy works on frequency. everything is frequency. even you. you believe to be solid, but in fact you're body is nothing but a number of atoms with a very little mass rotating around themselves and much much much space in between. If you'd assemble your atoms without the space inbetween, you could not see that with your eyes.
as far as I heard.:)

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

[Ziggurat]

The most important food industry as far as quality is concerned is the wine industry.
The amount of wine producers around the world that use organic and specifically bio-dynamic techniques is growing daily.
They do this without ANY reference to it on their product or in the press.

Not true. I've seen wine labeled on the bottle, in a prominent fashion, as organic.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Fair point. But on the other side, there are at least 5 varieties of carrots at my farmers market (which is only partially organic, by the way), and they're really tasty and look nice in a salad.



Sometimes, but it's not often possible. Where it is, it's far superior to anything mass produced, because it's made to fit and to order.



No. But would I, if I knew the people involved and approved of their practices? Absolutely, with no hesitation.



Yep. And the one I go to modifies clothes for less than you'd pay at any big store (which would simply farm it out to someone like him anyway). They fit better, last longer, look better. And there's a guy that fixes shoes for very little - cheaper, and much preferable to finding a new pair every time something breaks or wears out on some old favorites.

So if you feel that you simply must have a personal relationship with the person who gorws your food, why don't you have to have that same relationship with the person who makes your clothes? Or builds your car?

[roger]

In the biggest US city, New York, there are 30 or 40 farmers markets in the summer, with 15 or so open year round. That means a huge number of people - tens of millions, probably - are within 1/2 mile of one either at work or from home or both. Since the distances are so small and few people drive there anyway, that's basically zero carbon cost on that end. The tradeoff is the farmers have to drive farther. But since the markets are so busy they can bring in a large quantity of food, and they probably truck-pool. So I suspect the efficiency is pretty decent.15 to 40 markets for over 8 million people?!?!?!?!?!!

That's just not a workable proposition. Sure, for the very few that can shop there the carbon footprint may be lower, but so what? Scale it up to where all 7 million inhabitants can shop and you have what - I'm going to guess tractor trailers, depots, packing/shipping, it'd look remarkably like your local safeway distribution system.

Not that I think that is an argument that those 15 markets shouldn't exist - if it works out to be a lower ecological footprint - great! But what a truly tiny result.

And for an alternative location - I live in the foothills of CO. As you might guess, no produce farming up here - 8000ft, short summers, really bad soil doesn't equal good growing conditions. There are quite a few farmers markets around in the summer. Average round trip is, I dunno, at least 30 miles for up, up and down very steep mountain roads, and pretty far out of the way of our normal travels. I have visions of all these mountain residents driving their big SUVs and trucks (no disparging comments, I challenge you to get through our multi-foot snow storms in a prius), going up and down these steep hills, making special trips to get produce. It doesn't add up.

And this is what I meant by a "wash" earlier, which you took issue with. Sure, the NYC resident walking by a local market will make a lower impact by stopping at a farmer's market. I won't, unless I just happen to be passing by one when it is open and it adds nothing to my trip. In reality, when we are limited by the # of farms around, the production of them, etc., it's a "wash". You spend less energy, I spend more, you buy NY state wine at a higher energy cost, I buy french wine at a lower energy cost, etc. In total, it has been suggested by those who study it, local buying doesn't really have an energy benefit.

And let's be honest, the average consumer really doesn't have the information required to make the decision about which products to buy locally, which to buy long distance. Obviously I am speculating somewhat about my personal trips. All I know is that if I go to farmers markets, my gas bill is higher, and my grocery costs are sometimes higher. In short, the "buy local - its better for the environment" smells of unsubstantiated reasoning.

[sol invictus]

Yeah. 30 - 40 whole farmers markets in New York!!!!! Woo-hoo!!!!

Assuming that each can support, say 10 000 people, that means that almost a half a million people can get their food at farmer's markets in New York. About 10% of the population.

So your point is there should be more? Yes, I agree. And your estimate is absurdly low - 10,000 people a week is very small. 10,000 people a day is still pretty small by the standards of some of these markets (according to one source, a single market in NYC hits 60,000 a day at its peak).

And the whole "truck pool" is getting laughable.

What the heck do you think a semi-load is if not a "truck pool"?

That's a "truck pool" too - but one that (evidently) travels 1,700 miles instead of 50, or gets flown 3,000 from California.

There's a lot of defensiveness on this topic that smacks of the irrational. Our current food and agriculture system evolved in the mid-20th century, heavily influenced by government subsidies, the health fads and food culture of the time, the transportation network, farm machinery and technology, etc. All those things have changed to some extent, so why is it so hard to believe that the food system might need to adapt?

So if you feel that you simply must have a personal relationship with the person who gorws your food, why don't you have to have that same relationship with the person who makes your clothes? Or builds your car?

That's a very strange question. Let me ask you: if you feel you must have a relationship with your family doctor - as I assume you do - why not with the guy that built your car?

For me, the answer (regarding food) is essentially because it's more personal, more important, more culturally significant, and more relevant for health and well-being.

But as I said before, if I could buy a car built locally, particularly if it was as good or better, and no more expensive than other options (as is often the case with local food), I probably would - and I'd be curious to meet the people that built it.

[sol invictus]

15 to 40 markets for over 8 million people?!?!?!?!?!!

That's just not a workable proposition.

It's not a "proposition" at all: it's a fact. As for numbers, according to one source the Union Square market draws 60,000 shoppers a day during peak season. If those people go once per week, 20 markets that size would suffice for the entire population of 8 million. And the same source says there are 23 year-round markets, and 47 in the summer.

Now I'm sure the average size is well below 60,000/day, but again - so what? No one is claiming this system has or could replace supermarkets for now.


Sure, for the very few that can shop there the carbon footprint may be lower, but so what? Scale it up to where all 7 million inhabitants can shop and you have what - I'm going to guess tractor trailers, depots, packing/shipping, it'd look remarkably like your local safeway distribution system.

Yes, except with the many crucial differences that we've been discussing.

[pgwenthold]

So your point is there should be more? Yes, I agree.



And so I ask again, where are you going to put all those farmers around New York City?

You know, you could start having them come in from the middle of New Jersey, but now where are you going to get the farmers to feed Trenton?

[sol invictus]

And so I ask again, where are you going to put all those farmers around New York City?

See my post above. Your estimate was way off - 20 markets the size of the Union Square one could serve the entire population once a week. Realistically it's probably more like 100, since not all can be that big, and I'll bet many of the 20m people in the commuter basin would go as well. But that's only roughly twice as many as there are now, and there are plenty of empty lots in NYC.

You know, you could start having them come in from the middle of New Jersey, but now where are you going to get the farmers to feed Trenton?

Again, you're flailing away at a straw man. Sure, the system as it is now could not support all those people entirely on local food. But no one said it could, or even should.

[roger]

It's not a "proposition" at all: it's a fact. As for numbers, according to one source the Union Square market draws 60,000 shoppers a day during peak season. If those people go once per week, 20 markets that size would suffice for the entire population of 8 million. And the same source says there are 23 year-round markets, and 47 in the summer.Great, another JREF argument where someone pulls a single word out of a multi-paragraph post and then argues with it. In context, I said that these markets could not serve 8 million people. I stand by that - where on earth are the farms going to be that serve 8 million people? Where are the stands going to be located so that people spread over 5 boroughs are going to be able to go to them vs their corner market, etc.

It's trivial, and irrelevant, for somebody to come up with counterexamples. I'm growing tomatoes on my deck. Very low carbon footprint (if you ignore the special trip I made down the hill to get the plants in the first place). However, it is not an answer to the country's food distribution issues. You would rightly call me absurd if I suggested the way to go is to just grow your own food. A tiny help? Sure. A better connection to nature? You bet. A worthwhile endeveor? Naturally. But not a solution. And that's how farmers markets and the like are often being positioned - a better solution. The data for that just isn't there. In some cases, in some ways? Yes. It's certainly better to have farmers markets when I compare how I lived when I was growing up in the 70s in NH - tons of canned food.

I think you are surmising an attitude that isn't there. Farmers markets are great for many reasons (you've listed many). What they aren't is energy efficient (counterexamples nonwithstanding). They aren't capable of feeding the nation.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

That's a very strange question. Let me ask you: if you feel you must have a relationship with your family doctor - as I assume you do - why not with the guy that built your car?

For me, the answer (regarding food) is essentially because it's more personal, more important, more culturally significant, and more relevant for health and well-being.

But as I said before, if I could buy a car built locally, particularly if it was as good or better, and no more expensive than other options (as is often the case with local food), I probably would - and I'd be curious to meet the people that built it.

Not a strange question at all - having a relationship with someone providing a service - doctor, roofer, plumber - is much different than having a relationship with someone providing a commodity product. It just seems odd that the "organic" food crowd has this bizarre need to slobber all over the guy growing their tomatoes, but will just buy any old pair of bluejeans off the rack.

I had some rather delicious corn on the cob last night. I got it at the supermarket. I have no idea who grew it, I have no idea where it was grown. All I know is that it looked good and it was on sale. Somehow I don't feel any regret over not meeting the person who planted it.

[roger]

Again, you're flailing away at a straw man. Sure, the system as it is now could not support all those people entirely on local food. But no one said it could, or even should.The claim is that farmers markets are more energy efficient. We are questioning these claims. You have to look at the whole system to evaluate that. You claim a Prius is more efficient than a 4runner. I point out that when I take my 4runner down into denver, I touch the gas twice, and get over 70mpg (true, by the way). In contrast, a smaller car has a less beneficial weight/rolling resistance ratio, and actually burns more gas than my heavy car. Not a very compelling argument, is it, though entirely true?

When you look at all the factors, farm density, population densities, # of trips required, economies of scale, pollution levels of the various forms of transport, people who have studied this have said that claims that local buying is more ecologically sound is false. There's no real benefit (they claim).

People like Unca and me are asking for supporting data. We are getting counterexamples. As for me, I'm willing to believe either side of the equation is true - local buying is more efficient, long distance is more efficient, or they are about equal. Counterexamples do not answer that question.