The science of organic

[Red Baron Farms]

A couple new things being "discovered" about how organic works. Submitted for discussion. Personally I have been taking advantage of many of these things for a long time. But my observations don't reach the standard of science. Nice to see real science finally catching up and beginning to determine causation.

Mycorrhizal Fungi: The World’s Biggest Drinking Straws And Largest Unseen Communication System

Fighting Microbes with Microbes

PS I want to see if people are telling the truth. If a conventional ag thread get started all about GMOs and chemicals, tons of people start up huge controversies. What they seldom do is think about the alternatives. If organic is ever to be considered an alternative, it must be based on science. So lets see. Were you telling the truth? Now that the science is finally catching up to the anecdotal evidence me and thousands of others have been claiming for decades, you still say organic is woo?

 

[jasonpatterson]

It depends entirely on what your actual claims are. If they are that underground fungi are complicated organisms that have complicated relationships to plants and that it is possible to use microbes to combat other microbes, I don't think that any reasonable person on here would argue. That's not what most people who are all about organic argue though.

 

[tyr_13]

What does any of that have to do with organic standards?

 

[Loss Leader]

Does anyone actually think pesticides are a good thing to have in food and ground water? The argument has been whether the benefit of eating organic foods outweighs the cost to the consumer.

 

[theprestige]

Does anyone actually think pesticides are a good thing to have in food and ground water? The argument has been whether the benefit of eating organic foods outweighs the cost to the consumer.

There's trace amounts of all kinds of horrible things in food and groundwater.

I'm confident there's plenty of people who absolutely think trace amounts of pesticides are a good thing in food and ground water, if the process that puts them there is a substantial net benefit to humanity. Feeding more people than ever, more cheaply than ever, for example.

The real question is, why don't you think this?

But I may be wrong. I admit, I haven't done the math. Have you done the math?

What's the energy cost and crop yield, per acre, of organic vs. non-organic [crop of your choice]? What's the documented, peer-reviewed health risk of the non-oragnic option?

Those are a couple questions for which I'd expect the moderator of a self-styled skeptical forum to have ready answers, if they were to take a side in the organic vs. non-organic debate.

 

[megaresp]

What's the documented, peer-reviewed health risk of the non-oragnic option?

The question can be asked in reverse also. What is the health risk of organic vs regular food production?

Health food types assume organic food production carries lower risk. Why assume lower risk?

 

[Red Baron Farms]

What does any of that have to do with organic standards?

I can't stop people from posting about standards. I actually have large disagreements with the certifying bodies.

However, I am personally more interested in the science and technology of modern organic methods in agriculture. Maybe a subtle difference, but an important one in my view.

 

[Libra]

I can't stop people from posting about standards. I actually have large disagreements with the certifying bodies.

However, I am personally more interested in the science and technology of modern organic methods in agriculture. Maybe a subtle difference, but an important one in my view.

I have made use of this product with great success. Mycorrhizal fungi definately makes a difference.

http://www.mycoroot.co.za/

 

[Loss Leader]

Does anyone actually think pesticides are a good thing to have in food and ground water? The argument has been whether the benefit of eating organic foods outweighs the cost to the consumer.

There's trace amounts of all kinds of horrible things in food and groundwater.

I'm confident there's plenty of people who absolutely think trace amounts of pesticides are a good thing in food and ground water, if the process that puts them there is a substantial net benefit to humanity. Feeding more people than ever, more cheaply than ever, for example.

What a bizarre way to answer. My first statement had nothing to do with potential benefits of conventional over organic farming. The question was meant only to indicate that I thought that pesticides in food and ground water are costs. They do not benefit the consumer.

My second sentence actually says the same thing you wrote: costs must be weighed against benefits. There are obviously great benefits to conventional farming, many of which you named. Someone who wants to convert the entire system to organic farming has to show that the cost/benefit ratio for organic farming is better than that for conventional.

That's what I said. Perhaps I should have been more loquacious.

The real question is, why don't you think this?

I never stated my beliefs about organic farming. I merely framed the argument. Just because I acknowledged one cost of conventional farming does not mean I think that cost outweighs the benefits, or that I think that organic farming's benefits outweigh its costs. I didn't state an opinion

But I may be wrong. I admit, I haven't done the math. Have you done the math?

No. But, then again, I'm not advocating a position. In any case, 53x71=3,763. There, now I've done math.

Those are a couple questions for which I'd expect the moderator of a self-styled skeptical forum to have ready answers, if they were to take a side in the organic vs. non-organic debate.

For the love of watercress, why? The job of the moderators is to keep the forum civil and monitor for spam. We don't speak for the JREF, nor do we hold ourselves out as experts. For what part of the moderator job do you think we need omniscience? Furthermore, unless one of us uses a mod box or makes it otherwise clear, we speak only as forum members - the same as everybody else.

 

[tyr_13]

I can't stop people from posting about standards. I actually have large disagreements with the certifying bodies.

However, I am personally more interested in the science and technology of modern organic methods in agriculture. Maybe a subtle difference, but an important one in my view.

Fine, then what does any of that have to do with 'modern organic methods in agriculture'. It doesn't appear that this information is limited to or originates from organic 'methods'. It reminds me of when organic proponents cite crop rotation as an organic success as if it were.

 

[DC]

Fine, then what does any of that have to do with 'modern organic methods in agriculture'. It doesn't appear that this information is limited to or originates from organic 'methods'. It reminds me of when organic proponents cite crop rotation as an organic success as if it were.

and do you react the same way when GMO fans use successtories about selective breeding as their successstory?

 

[tyr_13]

and do you react the same way when GMO fans use successtories about selective breeding as their successstory?

So tu quoque then, and an inaccurate one at that.

Why is such a simple question met with such rapid deflection? I'm trying to figure out how the links relate to the OP and the thread title.

 

[bruto]

As far as crop rotation is concerned, how you define it depends a bit on how you define everything. In at least one sense it is an organic method. There certainly are no manufactured chemicals or pesticides or other additives required. That anyone, organic farmer or not, can do it does not disqualify it as organic, especially if a non-organic alternative - adding fertilizers to depleted soil - exists.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Fine, then what does any of that have to do with 'modern organic methods in agriculture'. It doesn't appear that this information is limited to or originates from organic 'methods'. It reminds me of when organic proponents cite crop rotation as an organic success as if it were.

Well that's easy. Modern organic methods often use biomimicry, so soil science like what I posted either results in organic products like what Libra posted #8, or provide a scientific confirmation to methods already in use...(by establishing causation)


For example: Compost use in organic has been done for decades, but with studies like the ones I posted, it makes it possible to refine which bacteria in that compost may be giving some of the benefits organic farmers are seeing when they use that compost. Companion planting instead of monocrops is also quite common, and establishing that plants from different species can and do in fact communicate and interact through the Mycorrhizal fungi networks establishes a scientific basis for companion planting. There are plenty more examples where the science of organic can improve agriculture.

 

[tyr_13]

Well that's easy. Modern organic methods often use biomimicry, so soil science like what I posted either results in organic products like what Libra posted #8, or provide a scientific confirmation to methods already in use...(by establishing causation)


For example: Compost use in organic has been done for decades, but with studies like the ones I posted, it makes it possible to refine which bacteria in that compost may be giving some of the benefits organic farmers are seeing when they use that compost. Companion planting instead of monocrops is also quite common, and establishing that plants from different species can and do in fact communicate and interact through the Mycorrhizal fungi networks establishes a scientific basis for companion planting. There are plenty more examples where the science of organic can improve agriculture.

So it's science that can be used by organic agriculture, but also by conventional agriculture.

 

[tyr_13]

As far as crop rotation is concerned, how you define it depends a bit on how you define everything. In at least one sense it is an organic method. There certainly are no manufactured chemicals or pesticides or other additives required. That anyone, organic farmer or not, can do it does not disqualify it as organic, especially if a non-organic alternative - adding fertilizers to depleted soil - exists.

That alternative is useable by organic farmers as well, as you say, depending on how one is defining it. Keep in mind, and I'm sure you knew this, that crop rotation and fertilizers aren't opposed and use of both is very common.

 

[bruto]

That alternative is useable by organic farmers as well, as you say, depending on how one is defining it. Keep in mind, and I'm sure you knew this, that crop rotation and fertilizers aren't opposed and use of both is very common.

True enough, to clarify my point I should have said "artificial chemical fertilizers," of course. Crop rotation does not cease to be organic when it's practiced by many who do not count themselves as "organic." Whether you do it and how often may depend as much on your real estate as on anything else. Plenty of ordinary farmers around here practice crop rotation because it's cheap if you have the land to spare.

 

[tyr_13]

True enough, to clarify my point I should have said "artificial chemical fertilizers," of course. Crop rotation does not cease to be organic when it's practiced by many who do not count themselves as "organic." Whether you do it and how often may depend as much on your real estate as on anything else. Plenty of ordinary farmers around here practice crop rotation because it's cheap if you have the land to spare.

It's the basic problem of 'organic' as a descriptor. It tends to mean 'things I like as opposed to things that are badong' as opposed to anything else. When talking about it one is left to try to figure which usage the person, or persons, are using. On one end we have people using it to mean methods only using products sourced from life processes but NOT by geologic ones (banning the 'artificial' mined stuff even though it came from life processes as well). On the other end we have people using it to mean the (somehow) non use of fertilizers, fungicides, pesticides, etc. Most advocates on the internet boards I've found shift the definition where ever they need to in order to attack 'non-organic' agriculture. Usually anything 'good' is then an 'organic' advance, and anything 'bad' is other agriculture pitfalls.

Basically it's that stuff is 'used by/allowed by' organic and not 'created by' or 'developed by' organic.

This research is usable by organic or other agriculture. It allows us to better understand some of the risks of over use of fertilizer, fungicides, and herbicides so that they can be used more responsibly. It does not appear that this negates the benefits of using them, organic or not, at all. Over use of these products, organic or not, is a huge problem but that doesn't make ending the use of them at all the correct course. That's a lot like trying to tackle an obesity problem with an anorexia campaign.

 

[bruto]

It's the basic problem of 'organic' as a descriptor. It tends to mean 'things I like as opposed to things that are badong' as opposed to anything else. When talking about it one is left to try to figure which usage the person, or persons, are using. On one end we have people using it to mean methods only using products sourced from life processes but NOT by geologic ones (banning the 'artificial' mined stuff even though it came from life processes as well). On the other end we have people using it to mean the (somehow) non use of fertilizers, fungicides, pesticides, etc. Most advocates on the internet boards I've found shift the definition where ever they need to in order to attack 'non-organic' agriculture. Usually anything 'good' is then an 'organic' advance, and anything 'bad' is other agriculture pitfalls.

Basically it's that stuff is 'used by/allowed by' organic and not 'created by' or 'developed by' organic.

This research is usable by organic or other agriculture. It allows us to better understand some of the risks of over use of fertilizer, fungicides, and herbicides so that they can be used more responsibly. It does not appear that this negates the benefits of using them, organic or not, at all. Over use of these products, organic or not, is a huge problem but that doesn't make ending the use of them at all the correct course. That's a lot like trying to tackle an obesity problem with an anorexia campaign.

Agreed. I'm not doctrinaire on any fine points, though I like things as close to natural as one can reasonably get them. I prefer to think of "organic" in the "allowed by" sense. Things can get difficult, especially in these times of large conglomerates, where it is difficult to force all suppliers to adhere to organic standards. I like the idea of organic stuff but I'm not giving up Cabot cheese.

 

[theprestige]

What a bizarre way to answer. My first statement had nothing to do with potential benefits of conventional over organic farming. The question was meant only to indicate that I thought that pesticides in food and ground water are costs. They do not benefit the consumer.

Is there any evidence that trace amounts of pesticides are actually a cost?