Actual Study Organic vs Chemical

13 years ago

I thought this was interesting, considering the ongoing argument about organic vs chemical on this forum. This was a study that showed that sometimes the chemical controls have less impact on the environment than the organic.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100622175510.htm

I'm not against organic. I use organic when it works. What I am hoping that others will take away from this article is that each method should be evaluated for it's own worth and not automatically provoke a knee-jerk reaction.

Not everything organic is automatically good, nor automatically harmless. Not everything chemical is automatically bad nor automatically going to be the end of the earth as we know it.

Each treatment should be carefully considered, and perhaps the old wives tales and what "everybody knows" should not be accepted without checking it out.

Sort by:Oldest

Comments (4)

wordwiz
13 years ago
oregon,

I couldn't care less about organics, as far as the food I eat. This is someone who use to kill potatoes beetles with DDT (though we saved a row for early use!).

But, IMO, the reason most people choose organically grown food is not because of the impact on the environment, but rather they perceive the food to be safer for consumption, at least when it comes to veggies and probably fruit. Yeah, there are those who perceive lots of value to free-range creatures and are willing to pay premium prices for products. And while free range beef may be far better (or maybe not) than that fed in huge parking lots, reality is lots of Americans would suddenly find that eating hamburger would be a very special occasion they would have to save up for.

Plus, I'm not sure where the line is drawn between organic and non-organic. Is a steer raised on one of those so-called parking lots that is fed only food raised organically, and not injected with any hormones, organic? Is a similar steer that is allowed to graze on grass but whose supplements contain non-organic supplements non-organic? By definition, the answer to both questions is YES.

Then we have a combo of both. A Farmers Market here sells eggs from free range, organically fed chickens. In winter, the price can range from $13-17 per dozen! And if the weather is cold and the chicks don't put out, one may only get ten eggs instead of 12.

Rich families can make the decision, those who have to stretch their budget will have a hard time going the organic route.

YMMV,

Mike
DrHorticulture_
13 years ago
Reasonable people are already aware of this. The problem is those people who see everything in black and white, and the organic movement has a disturbingly large proportion of such folk. Same goes for the anti-GMO movement. I neither support nor oppose any such movements. Everything has to be evaluated on a case by case basis, but try explaining that to someone whose mind is already made up. Or someone who feels insecure about having an independent opinion that can be at odds with both mainstream extremes of thinking.
Related Discussions
Study on inefficiency of organic farming
Q
Comments (10)
As some who works in the crop production industry, conventional production does produce more food in large cropping systems (especially grains). With organic systems, you just can't get the people out there every few days to scout 50-500-5000 acres of plants properly (until it's harvest time, anyway). With many organic systems you need more scouting, though...so it gets done with more labor...just nowhere near what it should be for optimal yield because it's economically unwise. At some $$ point some crop losses become acceptable. The higher prices for organic on the open market actually help yields because this price break is higher than conventional systems. Some things are easier than others. You need a lot of land to properly rotate crops in most large scale (non-orchard) organic cropping systems. Even though organic strawberries yield similar to inorganic you need a lot more land because soil pathogens can wreak havoc on an organic field of strawberries if not immaculately cared for (more like good luck). Plastic helps a lot, but without good rotation you're playing with your crop. BTW, Verena Seufert is far from a Monsanto/Syngenta/Dupont/Dow/etc stooge. She's just a bit realistic about global food production. There is a -lot- of wishful thinking, bad information, or misplaced activism "facts" out there concerning conventional vs organic production. Also, OP is right on about how this doesn't really apply to the home gardener. Physical limitations and large-scale-home-gardens aside, most people out there can organically control almost everything in their garden. If used properly (proper amount, application style, and timing of application) inorganic additions should minimally effect your environment. Aside from a small amount of chemical fertilizer twice a year I rarely use inorganic methods in my garden. It's been many years and many thrips ago.
...See More
Organic Fertilizers vs. Chemical Fertilizers
Q
Comments (82)
I think the message as it applies here is that we shouldn't be afraid of using synthetics in lawn care just because they contain chemicals. Just because something has an "ingredient" with a funny looking name that may be hard to pronounce doesn't mean that it's necessarily bad or wouldn't be produced naturally. For example, organic fertilizers can cause chemical run off just like synthetic fertilizers. Somewhat off topic, someone asked me what I was feeding my dog because her fur was so shiny and smooth. This person couldn't believe when I told her that I feed her bagged, dry dog food from the pet store. "All those chemicals and artificial ingredients! It's just not natural!" This person fed her dog a raw diet, and I guess she was assuming that plopping a round of filet mignon into the food bowl was somehow more natural than dog food. To me, that's just as unnatural. (Her dog was also suffering from conditions that may or may not have been related to diet, including terrible fur quality and weak bone issues...) Giving a dog a T-bone is as unnatural as dropping countless pounds of soy meal in a lawn to feed it., just as broadcasting Scotts Lawnfood is equally unnatural to feeding your dog dry kibble. There is nothing natural about a lawn (or farming or gardening, for that matter). There was an entire hoopla about this years ago, which is why the word "organic" is used where "natural" used to be. Lawns do not exist in nature without human intervention. Stop mowing, feeding and weeding the lawn for a single season and you will see my point. In nature, success would be a single seed out of thousands germinating and surviving log enough to produce more seed. In the man made lawn, success is typically 85-90% germination at a minimum, with the constant upkeep to ensure proper care for many years, and the prevention of any grass plants from producing seed. At any rate, I was going for a lighthearted post with that image and not something of serious analysis.
...See More
Clear differences between organic and non-organic food, study fin
Q
Comments (18)
I'm not quite sure what is the point of this thread. In this one meta analysis, they reviewed 343 previous studies done, examining and measuring nutritional content of organic vs non organic vegetables. Is that right? Yet, after 343 studies done, they still find very little difference in the nutritional value of both groups. No difference that would actually support recommending one over the other for nutritional content. After 343 studies. That to me is a very large waste of time and money to do that many studies when the first 50 probably told you all you needed to know. I also have to wonder, who was paying for these studies? Is some organization trying to gain support for their point of view with 'scientific studies showÃ¢ÂÂ¦'? At any rate, I haven't expected that organic produce has significantly higher amounts of nutrition over non organic produce. I simply understand that pesticides and fungicides actually are designed to kill bugs and fungus. Why would I want to eat foods that were sprayed with any kind of agent that can kill, even if it is just a small bug? And had them repeatedly applied? And that the soil that they are growing in has had years and years of them being applied? The other reason I choose organic gardening, is because an ecological system clearly exists. Why ignore that rather than try to understand it and work with the system rather than against it? None of these studies address either of those reasons why I choose organic.
...See More
Organic yield vs Non-Organic yield - or - U of M vs MSU
Q
Comments (10)
I have to agree with fruitgirl, but for reasons that most people seldom think about. No doubt about it, organic yields are comparable to conventional on a bushel-to-bushel basis. And I agree that organic methods do work. On certain plots, with certain techniques they may even out produce conventional several times over. However, what we seem to forget is that organic practices include longer rotation schedules than conventional. I live on a conventional farm in the upper Midwest and here the rotation is probably the same for most Midwest farm: corn, then soybeans, then corn again, then soybeans again, and so on, forever. An organic farmer would also plant corn, then soybeans. The third year is where the difference begins to show. The farmer is going to plant oats, buckwheat, or rye early in the spring, and then more than likely, it will get plowed under to break the weed cycle. After it gets plowed, the field will be seeded to alfalfa, or maybe timothy hay. If it is alfalfa, the field will remain in alfalfa for several years until the cycle begins again. THIS IS GREAT FOR THE SOIL!! But look what it does for the on-going, overall yield of corn and soybeans: over four years the organic farm has only produced one-fourth of the conventional yield of corn and soybeans. Of course, we can argue that is how farming should be done, however, our society and culture must undergo a tremendous culture shift in order for that to succeed. A whole lot less meat, and much more vegetables and grain. So fruitgirl rightly stated: "I'm not arguing that organic farms do not experience good yields. I'm saying that a large-scale organic farm doesn't get the same yield as a large-scale conventional farm because they have a harder time battling the effects of monoculture. And, as I stated above, the US (and most other developed countries) are not structured in such a way to allow for a multitude of small farms". In the end, it is this "really-good-for-soil" cycle that reduces overall yields, not the lack of chemicals applied to the soil. Small organic farms do out produce conventional farms. Small organic vegetable and fruit operations are better for our health, the environment, and our society as a whole. And despite the fact that I would wish the whole planet to go organic, I agree with fruitgirl, that our structure of food production is now geared towards feeding 6 billion people and difficult to change. Yes, we do add more organic acres every year, but China is adding them even faster than the US. The US hasnt met its need for organic production since 2000. Nearly 15% of all organic food sold in this country is now imported, and at the rate of production of organic food look-alike junk (Oreos, Cheetos, toaster pastries, etc.) the imports are only going to rise. Moreover, the rate of conversion of conventional to organic has slowed down. Unfortunately, I suspect suburbanites often fail to fully understand farming and fall victim to the shouts of the anti-agribiz types.
...See More
User
13 years ago
IMO...

Field crops (especially monoculture crops) and tree fruit crops will find it hard to get away from chemicals. Profit margins are thin enough without dealing with reduced yields and reduced marketable product.

The able-bodied home gardener rarely needs the chemicals.

The "harm" from the article referenced is mostly ecosystem animal harm that can be immediately counted...well, that and reduced effectiveness. The mineral oil application (like nearly all oil applications) kills baddies and beneficials. The synthetics can sidestep that, but they have their own well-known issues outside of that.

The study really only focused on active in-field organisms (bugs). This study doesn't take into account air/water/run-off concerns/etc...
glib
13 years ago
Here is a piece that is relevant to the discussion at hand: the last major K and P worldwide deposits were found in the 1980s. Future generations will wonder in amazement that we let all that fertilizer flush out to sea for generations.

Actual Study Organic vs Chemical

Comments (4)

wordwiz

DrHorticulture_

Related Discussions

User

glib

COMPANY

BUSINESS SERVICES

GET HELP

CONNECT WITH US