We kinda need to get to the bottom of this! Likely we will not make it though.

elisa, likely your remembered tastes are at least partly right, and I wonder if there could be a bit of romanitized 'lore' too?....just fishing here.

Elisa, I think yes, where people are more demanding the produce will be better. Because most people will simply accept what's available, that drives the market and allows conventional growers to concentrate on appearance and quantity.

I guess I have not been paying attention to how desperate the conventional food industry has become.
They are rapidly losing market share.
Talk about twisting the facts! Geeeeeeesh!
Here are some references to scientific studies showing that organic is often more nutritious than conventional:

http://www.organic-center.org/reportfiles/5367_Nutrient_Content_SSR_FINAL_V2.pdf
http://www.mda.state.mn.us/~/media/Files/news/govrelations/organicstatusreport.ashx

I think pnbrown has it right.
The next time someone tells you organic has no difference from conventional, trust your taste buds.

Unfortunately, I do agree with these naysayers in one respect.
Organic agriculture AS IT STANDS TODAY is not ready to feed the world.
We have too many myths we are following.
For example, composting is one of the most expensive and inefficient methods for improving the soil.
There are several university studies recommending incorporation instead.
Washington State has a study showing that as little as a 5% mistake in C/N ratio can cause a 30-50% loss of nitrogen through evaporation.
And there are many in the agriculture industry trying to get farmers to bring animals back into our rotations instead of hauling manure.
We are simply trying to over manage mother nature.
That is too expensive and inefficient.
If we really want to compete, we must change.

Here is a link that might be useful: Garden For Nutrition

This post was edited by GreeneGarden on Fri, Feb 22, 13 at 22:00

You just said in your very own post that organic farming "as it stands" can not keep up with food needs. Thats because "as it stands" we are not farming half the earths land. You see so much hype and health stores pushing this organic food that hold no health or safety benefits, and can be worse on the environment.

This post was edited by TheMasterGardener1 on Tue, Feb 5, 13 at 1:17

Recent studies of farmers who have stopped composting and are bringing animals back into rotation show equal yields at equal cost with conventional farming. Organics has to be allowed to evolve just as conventional agriculture has evolved. I appreciate your concern for how inefficiencies can have an adverse affect on the environment. Believe me, I get wacked upside the head repeatedly for attacking the HOLY COMPOST over it's inefficiency.

Here is a link that might be useful: Garden For Nutrition

This post was edited by GreeneGarden on Tue, Feb 5, 13 at 1:18

You can find a study that points to conventional being as nutritious as organic as easily as you can the opposite.

There's been a lot less study than people would like. What's more, there's a horrible lack of consistency about what's studied. On both sides of study, there's really horrible sourcing issues. The best studies I've read involve citrus (oddly) where they're the same type, grown in similar soils, and picked at the same point of ripeness. It's a lot more trustworthy than researchers who went to the grocery store or farmer's market to pick up some organic vs conventional sources...treating all "bell peppers" or "tomatoes" the same no matter what seed source it came from.

Cultivar/variety plays a huge role in it's final nutrient content.

One of the biggest (and well sourced) conventional vs organic studies done recently was extremely harshly attacked (even though it referenced the over 200 studies it drew it's conclusions from) by some of those that didn't like it's conclusion.

Fwiw, that report from the "Organic Center" includes many of the 200+ studies in the UC-Stanford report that was crapped on...only without cherry picking the reports and only using data from 40-50 studies. It's a rather "lazy" study from a professional point of view for all the work that was put into it.

Also, the UM study was done by Meg Moynihan...organic dairy farmer and board member of 2 organic professional marketing associations. I'm not familiar with the sources (though assuredly legit) of her study as much as I am about that report from the Organic Center. It was peer reviewed by her superiors and peers before released, though I wouldn't take that her study as gospel given her strong industry ties.

The most common consensus about organic vs conventional nutrient quality based up the existing data is there's a negligible advantage toward either, though organic has shown slight benefits in some areas such as vitamin C content and flavonol quercetin...which isn't the "tastiest" flavonoid out there, but is believed to have positive health effects. Unless you don't eat fruits/veggies at all you're never going to "go low" on quercetin levels in your diet....it's in almost everything plant-based that we eat.

I compost all I can- crop residue, fall leaves, kitchen waste,ect... I spread it on my rows every year. I use leaves as mulch over the winter. I try to manage my soil well and keep a high OM level. The compost I make could never fit my crops nutrtional needs though. I just dont produce enough. It is good enough organic matter to keep the soil good, but it is not organic matter high in nutrition like manure(like you were saying) so it wont keep up with nutrition.

One of the biggest roadblocks in organic vs conventional in some areas for some low/medium feeding crops (especially in the US) has less to do with soil nutrient feeding and a whole lot more to do with pest and weed control, especially in areas where massive amounts of animal waste are available for organic inputs.

While growing corn (or another heavy feeder) organically using organic input nutrients would be a hard sell to most of those farmers, many other crop farmers can opt to go organically with the nutrients they want given proper variety/cultivar selection...especially many tree fruits, melons, sweet potatoes, cow/black-eye peas, etc...

The biggest issue for them is controlling weeds or pests on huge monoculture crops of tree fruits, toms, peppers, squash, cabbages, head lettuce, etc.

Also, there's a lot of growth regulators (usually to make a fruit bigger) used on tree fruits (and grapes) not approved for organic production. It's a bit of a hard sell to some of these producers even if they can get past the pest pressure issues. Crop loss and less yield per acre can make/break many mass acreage farmers even with a higher market/wholesale price on organic goods.

Some things are a bit easier...like quick-growing leaf lettuce greens and potatoes (in some areas not prone to massive amounts of root pests).

I'm one of those people that believe once we make greater advances in organic pest/weed controls, we'll see more organic growers enter the market.

This post was edited by nc-crn on Tue, Feb 5, 13 at 2:09

Here are some facts that are quoted in the "infact" video.

"The National Organic Program is managed under the USDA's Agricultural MARKETING service. Organic is about marketing, not about science, not about health."

This post was edited by TheMasterGardener1 on Tue, Feb 5, 13 at 13:31

There are some things I will buy in the supermarket that are organic - primarily to avoid pesticide residue, but very often for taste. Now I'm the first to admit that taste is subjective. There are also going to be supplier differences, regional differences, seasonal differences, and so on. So I've posted before about trying a blind taste test, comparing, say, an organic Gala apple with one bought in the same store at the same time that isn't organic.

So apples are a big one for me, grapes and strawberries. The intensity of the taste is - often enough - significantly better. Next up would be celery, peppers, salads. The flavors are just better and worth the extra dollar or so.

Things like bananas and potatoes, not so much.

Let's face it. We live in a world market today. Oh, yes. there are areas and islands of niche markets...and these are expanding especially where there are higher incomes to 'indulge' in what is believed to be healthier food.

Farmers who raise wheat, corn, soybeans, tomatoes, meat animals, and other products face competition from Brazil, Argentina, Russia, China, Mexico, and many other exporters.

Even here in this country farmers are competing against each other. More organicish products have to pay in the market place. In the north it is a lot harder for farmers to get in a cover or green crop before cold weather. In the south it is a lot easier with the long fall season.

Some think that it is all about increasing organic matter, and then that is the engine to drive to healthy crops. Others like Julius Hensel [Bread From Stones] taught it was all about adding stone dusts and avoiding manure. For myself, I like to take
the best from all of them.

"I guess I have not been paying attention to how desperate the conventional food industry has become."

Organic cost more, is no healthier, and is worse on the environment.

This post was edited by TheMasterGardener1 on Thu, Feb 7, 13 at 11:02

MG, you are right that organic produce costs more at retail. The other claims are baseless and are wrong, but I'm not going to bother proving it to you again.

BTW, are you on someone's payroll, or is this your own private crusade to help hold the line for the agri-giants?

I said all of the facts I need to. I am just thinking rationally.

The small organic gardener or farmer can be quite the opposite than the mass ag organic in terms of being environmentally friendly.

This post was edited by TheMasterGardener1 on Fri, Feb 8, 13 at 11:25

So then we agree that there is nothing in the nature of growing food without artificial synthesized compounds that is impossible on any scale. It is a question of whether it is profitable, or more to the point, more or less profitable.

Your whole bag that you are on about is whether or not agri-giants will be highly profitable, that's what it boils down to. So I'll ask again:

why would you care about their profits?

Organic yields 60% that conventinal does. We would need 40% more farm land if we farmed organic.

I think there is an acknowledged level of uncertainty that is actually driving the move toward organics.
With the alarmingly ever increasing rates of autism, ADHD, etc. people are taking matters into their own hands.
It is doubtful that big business will allow us to learn the causes of these diseases anytime soon.
So people are simply trying to get away from the chemical soup of conventional agriculture in general.
Sometimes you have to pay more for something valuable until the organic gardeners and farmers learn to be more efficient.

Here is a link that might be useful: Garden For Nutrition

This post was edited by GreeneGarden on Sat, Feb 9, 13 at 4:49

"Organic yields 60% that conventinal does. We would need 40% more farm land if we farmed organic."

TMG1 -- the problem is that you're still quoting from that thing you read that looks like a book and smells like a book but is actually propaganda written by, for, and to protect the profits of the large chemical companies.

When someone does a study that shows a statistically significant higher level of vitamin C in organic food over conventionally grown food, do you believe it? When someone does a study that shows higher levels of salicylates in organic vegetable soup than in soup made with conventionally grown veggies, do you believe it?

No, because that "book" (read: propaganda pamphlet) told you something else. Or maybe it's because others question the above mentioned research because both studies were done by people who support organic agriculture.

Well, time to look at the bias in the "book" you are quoting:
It was a work for hire. It did not compete with other manuscripts in the publishing market place.
It was paid for by Monsanto, Con-Agra, Dow Chemical (I forget the whole list -- I did the research for you a while back, but it didn't seem to impress you). It was not published by a publishing house, in which case it would have been vetted for errors.
It was produced by an agricultural corporation.
It did not receive any reviews from any respected review sources that I can find (if anyone finds one, I'll stand corrected) (PW, Library Journal, Book List, etc.) -- this is another BIG hint that it's not actually a book.
The author's father is well known for pulling "facts" out of his arse (better known as lying) to support his employers (Monsanto, etc. )and then hoping not to be caught (and then being caught) And so the name on the book is the son's (though they often write together . . .), who has yet to be publicly embarrassed by his I-live-in -another-universe kinds of claims (remember the list of his articles? remember how ridiculous his claims are about things like the dust bowl?)

So, the reason you see very little patience with your posts is not that anyone has anything against you -- it's that your source was long ago rather soundly discredited. Your source lives in another universe of "truthiness."

I know, I know, he tells you it's SCIENCE. That's his persuasive technique to make you believe him -- telling you that if you don't believe him, you're stupid because you don't understand SCIENCE, which is mathematical and fool proof, right? (one of my graduate degrees is in persuasion, so don't argue with me here . . .)

In reality, science is all over the place. It suggests one thing, then it suggests another, it requires more research, and yeah, it gives everyone a chance to believe what they want. (outside of a few laws and the periodic table--we've been over this before, too.)

It's easy to find data that shows organic agriculture outperforming conventional in drought years. Take a look into Rodale's 30 year side by side study -- no loss of productivity for organics there. At any rate, the 40% number is just plain wrong. I've linked a large, peer reviewed meta-analysis study below that shows differences to be from 5% to 34% depending upon various factors.

So, guess where you are? You're on an organic forum. And you're continually quoting from Chemical industry propaganda. Sigh. Maybe you don't mind the barbs that come in response to some of your posts -- maybe you like the argument! In that case, have at it. I just thought I'd try one more time to cast whatever light I could (from my own perspective) on the siteeashun. And I have the flu, so I had some time.

A while back you said your head says one thing, and your heart says to grow organic. Follow your heart, man -- in every single case in your life, it will be the wiser voice.

Elisa

Here is a link that might be useful: large met-analysis study -- the 40% lower yield number is not accurate

elisa_Z5,

"A while back you said your head says one thing, and your heart says to grow organic. Follow your heart, man -- in every single case in your life, it will be the wiser voice."

This is good advice that I wll take. Great words.I want to teach how to make compost from yard and kitchen waste, leaves ect. So many throw away leaves not understanding how much they can do. i used to do the same. I am understanding now how important composting really is.

I can see that organic comes first.

Elisa, it does not matter. In 20-40 years we will be forced to grow organically. The last large P and K mines were found in the 1980s. We will rue that trillion tons of high P manure that went, literally, down the drain and out to sea.

Potash is still mined heavily for potassium. Canada and Russia won't run out until we're driving around in Jetsons cars. We get our potassium from other mined sources, too.

Phosphorus is another issue...we should hit peak use in a few decades with a slow decline lasting 200-ish years. There needs to be a new major discovery or increased conservation if we want to avoid this. I should add that this, like "peak oil," is still a very controversial subject. Some would argue we won't reach peak for another 60-100 years and we have 300-400+ years ahead of us. Either way, it's not easily complexed from other sources or synthesized so we have what we have...and when that's gone...well, technology better have caught up.

This post was edited by nc-crn on Thu, Feb 14, 13 at 0:53

Poo is full of P, as I like to say. Why should we have to complex or synthesize it from other sources? Indeed we will rue the stupidity of sending the nutrients to the ocean. Not as much as the upcoming generations will rue it, though.

Many cropping systems, as we currently farm, neither have the sheer amount of manure needed for their fields or the time between seasonal cropping systems to apply manure.

Part of farming large cropping systems involves money per acre...and it's scope is beyond the raw material costs. Every time you drag a piece of machinery through a field you add cost to your cropping system in equipment costs, labor, time of fallow between applications/field use, etc.

At this point it's a lot easier to apply nutrients in a single run through a field carrying a single tank of nutrients rather than dumping dozens-hundreds of truck loads of manure...not to mention to the cost of actually hauling it to fields to be applied in the first place.

Many nutrients can be complexed or synthesized from otherwise "odd" sources...such as using natural gas to create N fertilizer or using waste products from manufacturing for many other nutrients.

P is one of those nutrients that mainly comes from a single type of mined source (aside from manure).

If/when this source is on the decline suppliers will have to get those sources from manure....whether it be land applied or some company/corporation doing point-of-source recycling and extraction of P sources at waste treatment plants in order to concentrate P so farmers can continue to apply it to fields in less equipment/labor intensive methods.

nc-crn,

I am so glad you come here to post. You are very rational.

"At this point it's a lot easier to apply nutrients in a single run through a field carrying a single tank of nutrients rather than dumping dozens-hundreds of truck loads of manure...not to mention to the cost of actually hauling it to fields to be applied in the first place. "

Thank you, nc. This is a point I have been trying to make.

How about the gas it takes for those trucks to spread all that heavy organic matter.
At that point, the organic farmer is using more fuel per pound of crop produced.

This post was edited by TheMasterGardener1 on Fri, Feb 15, 13 at 10:32

Concentrating P will not concentrate other things. People will get goiter all over the Midwest for example, which would be eradicated over time by constant application of manure. And the infrastructure for the easy, energy conserving application of manure does not exist. You have to look beyond this extremely short historic period, or as the natives said, you have to think about the seventh generation.

Ever since the automobile and tractors did away with most horse raising, farm manure has been in short supply to cover farm fields. Even in my youth on the farm with mixed farming, the back 40s seldom got much manure...let alone the rented 120 acres a good half mile away or so.

Cover crops can easily be worked into garden applications, but northern farms are hard put to have time [and growing time] to raise much of these.

The Amish farm more like the old timers did. It may work somewhat for them, but not so much for modern farmers. Even the Amish are short on land and have found ways to circumvent some restrictions.

Glib, Where would iodine come from in manure? If it isn't in the soil or supplements for the animals, it won't be there. Iodized salt has iodine [duh]. I take a couple kelp tablets a day as supplemental iodine....very, very cheap.

Manure does contain iodine, both human and animal, due to supplements, NOW. It will NOT contain iodine after oil ends. Cover crops are immaterial since they only provide extra N.

When it comes to other minerals that are in short supply here in the Midwest, selenium and zinc also qualify. Locally here, P is also quite scarce (5ppm at my orchard before amending). Manures are rich in those elements NOW. They will be poor, or not as rich, later.

Planting grass, legumes, and forbes as a rotation in row crop
fields and then having animals graze them is a great way to
increase nitrogen and potassium in the soil from urine.
This solves the transport of manure problem.
Row crops can be planted for the next several years.

Instead of hauling and spreading rock phosphate and
rock potash farmers and ranchers are spending more time
pursuing ways to unlock what they already have.
For example, allowing the grass to grow tall before grazing
allows ectomycorrhizal fungus to provide a burst of phosphorus
that normally would only be available to tree and shrub roots.
At the end of the year when all of this organic matter gets
worked back in, it feeds the saprophytic phase of mycorrhizal
fungus until the right roots come along. That is another
reason compost is so inefficient; it mainly just encourages
bacteria.

Here is a link that might be useful: Building Up Soil

The last thing a crop farmer wants is herds of animals compacting their soil in between turning it into a muck/muddy mess...plus ideal grazing time tends to coincide when you actually have crops in the ground.

There's also the weed issue of turning grazing/pasture land into crop land following a grazing scheme even if you did want to take a year off farming in order to raise a crop of animals.

Putting a crop into the ground requires the amount of investment many small businesses never see. Unless the farmer is lucky enough to actually own the 100-100s of acres they're planting (rather than renting it or paying it off trying to own it) you have 10s-100s thousands of yearly costs in order to put a crop in the ground and properly grow/harvest it.

They have to make that land productive every year/season they can while keeping their land stewardship as earth-friendly as possible. Dead soil doesn't do any farmer any good.

Read magazines like Stockman Grass Farmer and Acres U.S.A.
This is exactly what is being recommended and many farmers
are using it.
Of course you have to manage the cattle so they do not overwork
the land. Ranchers have always had to do that. Nothing new.
Land is not compacted unless they are in a small small pen.
Most grasses are allelopathic so they actually help suppress weeds.
Texas A&M has done studies which prove this works well for farmers.
The range of choices is from leasing the land to someone who owns
the cattle and knows how to manage them, all the way to managing
them yourself and selling the cattle at the end of the year,
and all the options in between.
Gardeners need to think about the same issues;
prevent nitrogen evaporation, encourage a biological environment
that will promote mycorrhizae, encourage beneficial bacteria, etc.
Admittedly that is harder to do in the city than in a rural
environment.

This post was edited by GreeneGarden on Sat, Feb 16, 13 at 0:30

A back-to-back pasture/crop model may work for crops like wheat/canola and similar, but for corn/melons/squash and many other crops this doesn't work well. Wheat and another small grains aren't even row planted for the most part...those lands can be alternated with grazing/pasture land rather easily once the pasture is turned over.

If you go out to many crop fields most of it is ill suited for humans to even walk on, much less animals for most of the year.

One could do a "step down" method of doing corn/soy/wheat/pasture with shallow/no tilling as they step down, but many farmers can't afford to lose the $ on the year of pasture. It's a luxury of those farmers who already own their acreage...which isn't in line with our current agriculture system where small farms produce only about 10% of our food.

The farmers out there renting or trying to pay for 200 acres of land have far more pressing concerns with cash flow and $ per acre of worked land. The "mega-farms" have very little interest in a year of pasture rather than growing a better cash crop.

Also, the allelopathic effects of grasses are not really that great and unless you keep a pasture in a continuous pastureland state it's effect is going to be even less effective. Many broadleaf weeds are effectively out-competed in a properly planted/managed pastureland anyway.

nc_crn - you are absolutely right. It is a very difficult financial
decision. With all of the government agricultural subsidies,
many practices are being artificially maintained. And some
lands that are in row crop should be converted back to
pasture anyway. There is not a one size fits all answer.
And many systems are designed to look at the short term profits
only. Very little attention is being paid to the cost that society
bears as a whole for such chemically intense systems.
But eventually the system as a whole cannot be sustained.
We did not get here overnight, and we will not get out of this
predicament overnight.
But the basic points I am making are still valid for both
gardeners and farmers. If we do not work some un-composted organic
matter into the soil, we will not be encouraging mycorrhyzae in the
saprophytic phase. We will not be encouraging the amoeba and
protozoa and other creatures that help mineralize the soil.
We will have to keep spending money on mineral amendments
instead of unlocking what we already have.
If we always jump to composting as the only way to improve soil,
we will be losing nitrogen un-necessarily. Admittedly,
the move to organics is going to require people to change what
they eat as much as how farmers and gardeners work.
None of the answers are simple. And deep in the city, it is
very difficult and expensive to get fresh organic manure or
even organic matter. Partial composting may be the better way
to go when deep in the city. But then there is not that much
vegetable gardening deep in the city anyway.

Thank you Green Garden! Finally, someone who understands the WHOLE picture!
I too read Acres USA, best magazine I've found in years & years if a person is at interested in the subject of sustainable farming....and many articles can be incorporated into our own little veggie gardens & yards.

Most of the crops around me in the fields are corn and soybeans with an occasional wheat crop. The are a few pastures and hay fields. If a farmer does have a grass or hay crop, it would have to be plowed [where would they find a plow?] or killed off [not so good] to plant the other crops.

At today's land, seed, fertilizer, tax, and rent prices, the farmer
is leery about low income crops. It is not an ideal situation, but is reality for them.

In my gardens I have only a horse manure pile with lots of straw and hay with it. I do add some leaf compost, but till in all residues in place.

Yes, those animal-grain rotations may increase N at a big cost, but they can not increase potassium since there is no potassium input. There is potassium output due to cropping the land (herbivory).

I do generally agree that commonly accepted composting practices are very inefficient. Those I prefer (tilling or burying uncomposted residue, and black soldier fly manure treatment) release far less CO2 or methane, make better use of nutrients and have other advantages (mass reduction and meat production for BS, and encouraging worms and fungi for tilling).

Oh man, I am immediately going to start hoarding Phosphorus.

I'll continue to produce K in my wood furnace, though, so no need to hoard.

BTW, if you have VHI P (137) and VHI K (698), but they are not in the correct "balance" would it be detrimental (to soil or environment via runoff) to add P? (Balance as defined by the soilminerals.com folks--my newest experiment in gardening--who say they should be equal)

Or does it make more sense to just work to increase soil life in order to free up the P?

If you free up the 'P' then after a while it will be used up by plants. Why not do both? Add it while increasing micro-life.

Soil health is so complicated it seems. I am linking an article that increases knowledge and perhaps some confusion at the same time.

Here is a link that might be useful: Soil Fertlity

Most plants use NPK in about a 10-4-7 ratio.

However, a lot of phosphorus goes into the seeds which are harvested and removed from the land while a lot of the potassium goes into the stalk and is returned [recycled] to the soil.

This post was edited by wayne_5 on Fri, Feb 22, 13 at 12:40

wood ash is generally 0/1/3, so it does provide P and there is no need to add phosphate if you are already adding wood ash to the garden.

Thanks very much for the info and advice on P.
Will probably try adding some (as potatoes, carrots and other root crops were small last year) and freeing more as well.

Wayne thanks for the link -- have not read yet, but will.
And to answer your question from waaaay up above about the lore of Italian food -- We weren't expecting great food before we went, and were blindsided by how amazing it was. I think it was the freshness (had never before had a chicken that had been killed that afternoon) and maybe because they let us (very underage) kids drink the home made wine :)

Also a good amount of K in Pee.

Be careful with wood ash.
It can make the soil very alkaline.
Alkalinity can lock up nutrients.
That is why I prefer to partially decompose wood chips and then use them as mulch.
Then I work them in at the end of the year.
That method promotes a neutral PH.

Back to Pn's question, because they haven't tried what most folks would consider excellent produce I guess. On the other hand, who are we to judge? Let's say I went to a friend's house and they grew varieties I didn't like, handled the produce poorly after harvest and then prepared a meal from their produce for me in a way I don't like but they just loved the meal....well...., who am I to judge?

Me, I consider myself a produce snob, really, I know what I like and really dislike the stuff I find inferior, YUK!!! An example that persists in grocery stores is the shipping type strawberries, they look so wonderful in those clam shells but are hard, tasteless and not at all sweet, why bother? My Chandlers are far better in every way except, they would be a horrible shipper as they bruise easily and wouldn't look too pretty by the time they made it to those clam shells in the stores.

Grocery store strawberries fall afoul of the "price per pound" market breeding (much like some other fruits/veggies)...size and yield.

Heck, color takes a front seat over taste while size and yield drive the decision to grow these cultivars. Disease resistance and how long they can stay on the shelf without rotting is also important.

They're not ethylene receptive/ripened...though they may turn a little more red while sitting on the shelf. It's just that market/shipping strawberries are mostly chosen for size and yield. That doesn't make for the best tasting strawberry many times.

This post was edited by nc-crn on Fri, Feb 22, 13 at 21:17

The large commercial strawberry growers have gotten their art down to a T, let's admit. The berries look good after a long journey and they fly off the shelf. Of course they are not particularlly delicious. It's the same for tomatoes. They look so perfect and you can even play catch with them. It's the same for those large year around cantaloupes. They have some taste in the middle but compared to my home grown ones, they are .hard and very predictably B grade.

The bell peppers are beautiful and ok. The small cabbages are delicious...wish I had that variety.

Ain't it so about those shipping tomatoes and strawberries. I used to do nutrition research in FL on those tomatoes and let me tell you, they aren't any better right off the vine, the shipping strawbs. grown down there are pretty lousy off the plant too. Not to bash the FL growers though, they're growing what makes them money, duh. The best strawberries I've eaten on the farm were Cavendish grown in FL, WOW, they were excellent in every way! Cavendish was not grown for shipping in FL.

michael, I grew Cavendish but had a problem with them. They were large and long and laid horizonally on the ground. They would be red on top and white on the bottom and rotted before the bottom got ripe. I have some Mesabi that are almost identicaL...so I have them on weed guard and plan to rotate them 180 degrees.....already have done that with Mesabi.

Michael, I'm interested in the various testing methods you may have used to analyze nutritional content.

Wayne: I've always used chopped straw for a mulch around the strawbs. to keep them off the soil, disease you know. In this normally arid climate I also drip irrigate, between the drip and straw the rots and spots are held at bay pretty well without spraying anything.

Pn: the research we conducted, if that's what you are refering to, involved employing different growing systems like plasticulture and the most efficient fertilization regimes along with the use of drip irrigation. Up to about 30 or more years ago all veggie crops grown in FL were planted via seed and on bare soil with solid set irrigation, if any. All state fert. recs. were based on growing that way and then alog came plasticulture and transplants. Needless to say, a whole lot of research had to be done to adapt to the new way of growing.

I'm told by a very reliable source that in south FL they are now going to the more expensive slow release N fertilizers to address water quality issues. We didn't analyze the produce itself for nutritional content, that would have been up to the post harvest guys with whom I was unaffiliated.