I think it has to do with a flaw in the testing. Most are done as side-by-side tests, with organic and non-organic methods used in adjacent plots. This is the only way to reach a baseline number, similar soils is one of the controls. The plants' nutritional values will be similar, because the nutrients in the mother soils will be similar. Organic agriculture seeks to show gradual but continued improvements in soil over the course of years, while synthetics-based practices have been shown to decrease many of the indicators of soil "health."

The link below is to an article which purports to debunk many commonly held organic myths. It is published on the auspicious Scientific American website - a highly regarded journal. What is interesting are the comments that follow, many of them debunking the science and methodology of the author.

I readily admit to being an advocate of organic practices. I frequently cite sources that are by their nature supportive of my understanding of fact and science, and often, those sources are somehow related to the organic "industry," it is very difficult to find and discern completely disinterested sources, and easy to find ones that support claims on both sides.

My primary motivation is not nutritional, which takes into account only human needs, but ecological. I do believe that sustained organic practices will improve the nutritive value of soils, and that it will gradually manifest as improved nutritional value of crops. The differences in ecological value, however, are well-documented, and sustained practice of either regime shows steady divergence between the improvement of soils by organic practices and their degradation by what are now called "conventional" ones.

Here is a link that might be useful: Read the comments

I don't ascribe Scientific American any credibility any more after they published an article suggesting that heirloom tomato plants only produce two fruits. It said a lot else (essentially that heirloom varieties were inferior to hybrids), that convinced me that their science and motives were tainted.

Everyone has an agenda, whether they admit it or not. It really gets my goat when researchers claim to be objective and yet either perform a flawed study or deliberately plan the study to validate the conclusion that they desired. I don't trust the FDA, nor big pharma, and Monsanto can burn in hell.

So when it comes to organic gardening, I pay little attention to studies, and instead rely on what "vibes" with my twenty years experience with gardening (many of the souls who haunt the soils forum have decades more experience!)

I know the characteristics of the soils that have supported luxuriant plant growth before (and what didn't). I know the texture, the way it held moisture, the smell, and the crumble. I also know that a barren land, devoid of soil life and plant roots to hold that soil will weather away from wind and water, or turn into a sloppy mess when it rains. So eventually you do what your developed inner sense (or gut) tells you is right, and don't even bother to read the flawed studies.

That's not to say that one turns one's back on all sciences--just flawed science. I am studying soils and hydrology in a methodical way through engineering classes. The presentation of information there is very factual because the only agenda there is making sure that buildings don't fall down and that water is managed. It's such a pleasure to study these things!

the biggest flaw in the testing is the driving motivation ie.,. who pays wins, there are no truly independent researchers anymore they are owned by either the supporters of a technology or the opponents of a technology, so those with the biggest support ie.,. those in bed with teh gov' come up with results that are then carte blanche as they suit the system.

so naturally any university tests will support the industry as their donations to run their faculties comes from the industry, in short it is all hand in glove corruption.

simple common sense says if you can grow food in a rotational way without the addition of any chemicals that food will have most or all its elements and be able to better feed the body, this does not happen in commercial farming practices where chemicals of all sorts are used including fertiliser and they mono-crop which depletes the soil of the trace elements that the plants need.

it comes back to common sense, if people are waiting for a definitive answer otherwise it won't happen. it is like on tv doco' shows they have topics of grocery lines always the underlying story is they are promoting one product against another , so what they favor this week is the opposite to what they favor next week because all producers want equal footing.

when men, money and gov' come together corruption flourishes.

len

Here is a link that might be useful: lens garden page

Thanks, guys. And yes, now I have my answer. And here I thought that Scientific American was scientific!

Thankfully, organics is growing despite the efforts to debunk it. Maybe it's because people still have common sense and intuition.

That and less money, Elisa, which encourages people to try to save more by buying less food, and by buying less synthetic material to produce food. We are seeing an interesting convergence of economics, science (both good and bad, from a pro-organic point of view) and, let's be honest, fashion. Some people grow organically because it has the potential for being a less expensive approach.

And I will defend Scientific American to a point, it's their editor who deals with agriculture who seems a bit biased. After all, it ain't Objective Scientific American, though one hopes that what they would aspire to.

It sure isn't this:

Here is a link that might be useful: BIG can o' worms

I can put it in simple terms, like I am good at doing :)

Now, growing food using in-organics can supply the plant with all necessary micro and macro nutrients all in one cheap application. Growing uniform controlled crops, thats nice, right? Then organic which tends to grow plants with thicker cell walls that can not be attacked by pests but the plants grow slower.

With organics it may cost more to have those same micro and macro nutrients but it real organics. A human cell is much different then a plant cell. With that said, I would like to talk about how one would take a organic/synthetic multi vitamin every day and drink plenty of water, and eat plenty of good foods. This should sound a lot like what your plants are getting.

In the end I use almost 100% organic for the fact that I will be consuming what I grow and want the best end product.

"I want increased nutrition not increased yeid." MG :)

It is amazing to me how *well* plants grow even without the best soil, soil food web, etc. Good for them -- they're more resilient than we are!

Bi11me -- I don't know about defending SA! (but I think you mean you defend them in other areas other than agriculture.) In that article you linked to, the author lost my faith early on where she said that the higher levels of nitrates in non-og foods is insignificant nutritionally, when I had just read 10 minutes before (in a much more credible SA article) that those higher levels pose health problems especially for children. And on and on. The "taste tests" and "cause of world hunger" issues were too silly to even get into.

But here's my real concern: You don't like biodynamics???? :)

Mastergardener - I would suggest an even simpler rephrasing. Organic practices feed the soil for long-term improvement, in-organic practices focus on feeding the plant, with impermanent inputs and improvements to the soil.

Elisa - My defense of SA is based on the fact that it makes real science more accessible to the general population, and provides pHd candidates with a place to publish their writings. Their credibility as an agricultural resource is questionable. I respect biodynamics and know that it is effective, my trepidation is introducing the topic in a forum with a lot of - lurking skeptics, let's say.

Yah -- I've been reading a lot of old threads and folks do get ornery sometimes! (I am also recuperating, so doing lots of reading. I read in a recent thread that you are in convalesence (sp?). I wish you excellent health by the time it really is spring!)

So, l might introduce biodynamics one of these days to see if anyone is into it. Maybe when it's time to stir the BD 500 and I'm wondering about my sanity.

"Mastergardener - I would suggest an even simpler rephrasing. Organic practices feed the soil for long-term improvement, in-organic practices focus on feeding the plant, with impermanent inputs and improvements to the soil. "

Brilliant!

What you find on the internet depends on how you phrase the question in your search engine.
A larger question that needs answering is why are there so many problems with these "conventionally" grown food stuffs today, why is so much being recalled because of contamination by disease pathogens that were once only found on foods grown organically? Also, why are the migrant workers that work in fields dosed heavily with synthetic poisons showing genetic variations that cannot be explained? Why are our children showing signs of genetic changes that cannot be explained?
You can be sure the manufacturers of these products are not going to fund studies that will show the products they make are doing great harm to us and our environment.

For health lovers I have dropped this link in for you to peruse. Also besides this article, you can pull down the Health Topics menu.

Here is a link that might be useful: Jon Barron site

GARDENLEN: having taken part for years in the university part of that which you rail against, I find your following quote extremely offensive and filled with ignorance, "the biggest flaw in the testing is the driving motivation ie.,. who pays wins, there are no truly independent researchers anymore they are owned by either the supporters of a technology or the opponents of a technology, so those with the biggest support ie.,. those in bed with teh gov' come up with results that are then carte blanche as they suit the system."

"... be objective and yet either perform a flawed study or deliberately plan the study to validate the conclusion that they desired. I don't trust the FDA, nor big pharma, and Monsanto can burn in hell."

Have to appreciate, this phraseology. :)

Genetic mutations are a fact of life. Every generation carries their ancestors mutation and have a complete new set of their own. The simplest explanation for 'unexplained' genetic mutations, is that genetic mutations are as normal and common and prolific in all living creatures. So far as we have observed, none of them made us better lifeforms.

ralleia: welcome to the life sciences. When it comes to research, it ain't so easy as your field. Experimental design is crucial and it takes time to learn how to perform field studies.

Of course, poor experimental design will yield poor results and no useful information. Thank god for peer reviewed science or there would be so much garbage out there you'd never be able to sift through it all to find the good stuff. If it isn't peer reviewed I don't pay much attention to it.

If you want a really good researcher, please peruse this link....other great topics under Health Topics button.

Here is a link that might be useful: conventional-vs-organic-food

Excellent link Wayne, as stated previously, experimental design is CRUCIAL and your link goes into great detail illustrating the point. It is very unfortunate that with all the ability to disseminate information these days, so much mis-information is added, it confuses people and makes finding the accurate, true information that much harder to glean.

Your link also shows how much effort is required to set up a good field experiment before one even proceeds to the field. There is a great deal of effort that goes into any field experiment (hopefully) before the design is finalized including extensive literature research.

When reading anyone's research, it is critical to scrutinize, among other sections, the conclusions section to see if it holds water.