"For myself I am not against burning some fossil fuels. I certainly would not have liked to have spent last night out in the woods at 10 degrees F in a tent."

You need fossil fuels to stay warm? lol Or set some rocks by the camp fire then wrap 'em in pine branches and bring 'em in the tent, yup you will be very warm, I know ;)

Ditto, Wayne. MG - in my youth I used to go back country ski mountaineering with friends in the CO Rockies and can state emphatically, an excellent tent, sleeping bag and sleeping pad is critical. In addition, using the brain that the lord gave me was just as important.

I have had the air mattress go down during the night and when you wake up about 2AM, you are chilled to the bone.

"I have had the air mattress go down during the night and when you wake up about 2AM, you are chilled to the bone."

lol ;)

I believe we need to burn up those fossil fuels, before there is a shift in the tectonic plates that release all that tar and oil into the oceans and really make a mess.

Wayne: 1" closed cell foam pad, never goes flat and you can literally sleep on snow and not feel the cold beneath....well..till you roll over and have to warm the part your body is on some. I guess those newer pads with some foam inside and blow up are fine but I never bothered to buy one.

Interesting comments. I especially like the comments from folks who say we shouldn't be purist about Organic in an Organic gardening forum. I have learned from decades in the Organic farming game that people who say such things are not gardening organically and no, RoundUp is NOT an acceptable organic input by any stretch of the imagination, nor are synthetic fertilizers or insecticides as all of these inputs kill the soil life and without soil life you ain't got an organic garden/farm

Less local pollution (with several aspects) and less waste are my two main reasons for quasi-organic growing and composting, plus being busy so that organic fertilizers are cheaper slow-release fertilizers than say Osmacote. I also have some plants (container-grown pawpaws especially) that seem to be more sensitive to chemical fertilizers. Finally, my sandy soil is droughty and very low in organic matter so bulky organic fertilizers and compost have additional advantage.

That said, I find the organic gardening community to be half-fiiled (or perhaps less so, but louder) with dogma and misinformation and non-rigorous thinking and not a little paranoia, and with the well-recognized characteristics of 1000 other fads now and in the past. Toward its distal fringe (term apt), organic gardening far more resembles homeopathy and chiropractic (writ large) than agronomy or other science.

Near its proximal practical and deliberative end is where organic gardening's real wider lessons and benefits lie.

bananas you keep saying that organic gardening is full of dogma and yet here you have been given a lot of science on the practice and have yet to give any examples of your claim. Why do you persist in your anti organic message? Are you a paid shill?

Boulderbelt - I agree that there are a lot of posters on the organic forum who seem not to be as committed to the practice as some. To a degree, I welcome the discussion, it makes me think more deeply about the reasoning behind my own commitment. I also see very little factual information that the dissenters bring to their argument - the dogma and pseudoscience and spirituality assertions are rarely backed up by concrete examples - I suspect because they are so hard to find. Naysayers of the efficacy of organic methods do so because it is incompatible with the methods that they have adopted, and they have chosen to believe that, because it failed for them, it must therefore be a failure for everyone. I would happily compare my yields, nutritional value, or profitability with anyone who cares to pay for the tests, but I feel no need to prove it to anyone - my family and my customers are believers, so anyone who disagrees with me is incidental, and probably delusional. In America, being wrong is considered a right.

Similar to what I said previously...There are likely many people who might not be particularly organic that come across this site. This site could be just preaching to the choir and hostile to anything contrary to purism OR it can be a friendly sharing of both what works and what doesn't work well. I believe it should not be a secret club. I would rather 20,000,000 people would be one half organic than a thousand only of purer organics. The partial ones will tend to move up as they learn from friendly helpers.

im one of them, im far from 100% organic. im a "1 percenter" i aim to increase my self sustainability 1% at a time, mainly because i dont know what i need to know- yet. my small suburban yard doesnt allow me to have 3-4 compost piles going, and realistically, i cant cut out half my lawn to plant corn, or whatever. the synthetics i use currently are more of stop gap until my little compost bin does finish, or until the seedlings are at a point to take something other than the 1/2 tsp of miracle gro at waterings, or another method can be REALISTICALLY applied(main reason i troll this forum).

in short, im in the learning phase still. every year i try something new. one year it was sfg, the next was rain barrels for all my watering needs, the next was corn in a small space, next year was the potato bin(epic fail) this year im building self watering containers.
additionally, every year i try to improve on everything else, and every experiment intertwines with previous ones. most of mine revolves around water conservation and soil. being from colorado, i know how much of an impact a water shortage has on everything.

i absolutely believe in organic principles, but im also skeptical of fads, and ive been around long enough to know that there are people that profit off folks like me. along those lines i have enough education to spot "snake oil", most times.

i like most, have limits as well. im NOT going to save human urine to utilize in my garden. do i like knowing that if all else fails i can? yep. but right now, i choose other methods, maybe non-organic. those that are that committed to organic i want to learn from, but not always follow. buying organic fertilizer isnt organic to me. using what occurs naturally around me is. therefore, im not organic by my own definition.

organic has become a buzz word lately, and to me its always been about just recreating what stuff does in the wild. i guess letting a plant or animal be what it is, and do what it does. today theres so many rules, regulations, certifications, studies etc, that weve lost sight of what it really is. to simplify things we have to complicate them. silly.

funny thing i was thinking about yesterday, the human being is really the only animal capable of creating its own food, and in turn were the only ones that collectively choose not to on a daily basis...

lol

I see a lot of 'organics' people posting over and over again how great organic is as if they are trying to convince themselves of this. I also like organics. I wish everyone could grow everything organically. I think organics is better than synthetics in almost every way.

But...I am a realist. In order for the whole world to survive on organically grown food only, a lot of things would have to change and I do not think most people realize the changes that would happen in their life in order to be 100% organic, all the time, everywhere. So I am with Wayne, small steps, realistic steps, achievable steps, and one step at a time.

Lloyd

P.S. I also tend to be cynical when children are used to deliver a message. Too often they are being manipulated by adults with an agenda.

I have no doubt that the young guy in the original link has had some adult coaching, but I think his message is sincere, it is an agenda he believes in. Ted Kids is intended for the dissemination of the ideas and interests of young people in an adult format. Organic practice is based on pure science, although many practitioners don't do the work required to grasp the entirety of it. My interpretation of the importance of adopting organic practices may seem alarmist to some, but given the intertwining of agriculture and ecology, and the strong possibility of the impact of "conventional" agriculture on atmospheric carbon levels, my inclination is that those many small steps would be more beneficial as a sprint than an amble.

Sorry to change the subject, but is anyone else's antivirus software responding to page loads on Gardenweb? I run AVG and since last night it has been detecting and blocking objects on every page load. If I try to do a search on Gardenweb it really goes nuts and quarantines something that it considers malware.

I emailed GardenWeb yesterday but have not received any response yet. Does anyone know what this is?

"the strong possibility of the impact of "conventional" agriculture on atmospheric carbon levels"

I'm intrigued. Any chance of expanding this thought?

Lloyd

ralleia - I've been getting the same thing with AVG, though not on every thread. I suspect one of the participants has a Trojan infection that pops up.

Lloyd, you can find some science regarding conventional agriculture and greenhouse gases here:

http://www.abengoabioenergia.eu/corp/export/sites/abg_bioenergy/resources/pdf/acerca_de/informacion_tecnica/en/Sciencexpress_Croplands_for_Biofuels_Increase_Greenhouse_Gases.pdf

Here:

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20110916005678/en/Organic-Farming-Superior-Conventional-Agriculture-30-Year-Comparative

And at the link below, regarding the production of biofuels, none of which are produced with organic methods:

Here is a link that might be useful: Net carbon effect of biofuel production worse than oil

Interesting. The one study is a model solely dedicated to studying the production of bio-fuels and an assumption about what might happen world wide (land use change) as the U.S. uses more farm products for the production of bio-fuels.

The Rodale one is a continuing comparison of organic to conventional. I've seen this one before and I keep getting stuck on the "organic premium" they mention only in passing. This begs the question, if this "organic premium" is to allow more organic growing to take place, doesn't it mean that more people will have to be willing to pay that "organic premium" for their food?

They also mention increased workers on organic systems implying more man hours but I can't find the comparison of salary levels for those workers between organic and conventional. It also does not account for any transportation costs for these extra workers. Do they live on the farm?

They also used an "up to seven crops in eight years" rotation for organic yet a two year rotation for conventional. I have two issues with this. First, the organics is not producing for at least a year. Was this lost year accounted for when comparing yields? (and I note it said "up to" implying that it may have more than one lost year of land production.) Second, I know of no conventional farmer around here that runs a two year crop rotation so Rodale may have selected the absolute worst conventional method they could find. (This has implications in their soil health category as well.)

I conclude that the Rodale study is very interesting but somewhat biased in that they seem to leave out some important information and seem to compare the best practises of organics with the worst practises of conventional.

Lloyd

The intent was to address the production of greenhouse gases, as you asked, not in regard to yields or wages or labor requirements. Bio-fuels fail the sustainability test on many levels, except for certain farmers and certain large companies, but certainly in regard to releasing carbon from the soil. I admit that Rodale has an "agenda," but would argue that the reason why the forces behind the promotion of "conventional" agriculture don't perform, or publish, long-term studies like these is that the results don't conform to what they would prefer. The number of rotations is statistically negligible in terms of carbon sequestration:

The conventional systems emit nearly 40% more greenhouse gases (GHG) per pound of crop produced than the organic systems.

The biggest GHG emissions from direct inputs in the conventional system came from fertilizer production and on-farm fuel use.

The biggest GHG emissions from direct inputs in the organic system came from fuel use and seeds.

Finally' the "organic premium" that you mention is clearly one that is being accepted by a growing segment of the population - from 1997 to 2005, sales of organic food have shown consistent annual growth of 15% to 21%. That growth slowed with the effects of the recession starting in 2008, to around 13%, but that is true of many other products as well. That rising trend is predicted to continue until at least 2025.

According to an article in The Packer;

Growers' ongoing conversion of acreage from conventional to organic means distributors and retailers can expect sales to continue increasing as supplies expand.

Huge increases from 2006 through 2010, such as 193% growth for organic strawberries, help drive conversion, said Steve Lutz, executive director of Chicago-based Perishables Group.

The strawberry numbers were the extreme example, Lutz said, but other organic commodities had stunning growth in the same period.

Data from The Perishables Group showed organic apple sales jumped 95%, tomatoes increased 62% and packaged salads went up 55%.

Organics account for only 3.4% to 5.4% of all fresh produce sales, according to Lutz. But there is enough room for growth that growers are increasingly converting to and adding organic acreage.

The stars are aligning for growth potential for fresh produce in general and organics specifically, said Lorna Christie, executive vice president of the Produce Marketing Association.

For example, Washington has almost 1,000 apple acres in transition to organic, according to the Washington Agricultural Statistics Service. As of Jan. 1, there were 14,818 acres of certified organic apples in the state, representing about 9% of total apple acreage.

There's no reason to think growth in organic production can't continue, said Kathleen Merrigan, deputy secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

This increase would argue that many find the premium worth paying, and I would bet that a significant portion of those willing to do so base their decisions on ecological, rather than nutritional or economic criteria. I was fortunate to have started my operations at the beginning of the growth trend, so the return on my farm has outpaced any other investment I have. Economics may in fact be a "dismal science" especially in the last 5 years or so, but not for organic producers.This is a huge step in the right direction IF you find compelling the conclusions of the majority of scientists that climate change is affected by human activity. That's a different debate.

Here is a link that might be useful: USDA study of growth of organic production

I defy anyone to figure out where to get organic sources of P and K and trace elements for hundreds of square kilometers of low fertility soils in the SE US, soils which commonly have been leached for tens of millions of years in a humid warm climate and consist of nonreactive quartz sand and, where texture is a bit better, extremely leached kaolinitic clays. You can organically grow a little organic matter and N into the soil, but you must haul in P and K . . . by the vast tonnage. We in our gardens can do it organically, and perhaps should do it, but it is just plain impractical to expect massive agriculture on low-fertility soils without chemical fertilization. I think examples of dogma might be found in various outlooks on nation-feeding (and clothing) major agriculture. I think further examples of dogma might be found in some notions of chemical fertilizers "killing the soil biota" and "no growing is possible without an alive soil." (Tell the last to the hydroponics folks, for example.)

To each his own, of course. However, we simply cannot reasonably expect others to take our mere beliefs as revealed truth. And we cannot reasonably expect people trained in or very familiar with standard science to accept pseudoscience, or poorly founded science, or simple sales literature as scientific evidence or documentation. To me, merely a better recognition and acceptance of the distinction and separation among what is simply preference, or emperical experience, or belief, or suggested relationship, or experimental evidence would go a long way to avoid contention. We in a free society easily accept the difference between a person's religious belief and his testimony under oath in court as a witness.

You sound like a broken record with this pseudoscience stuff, using "quotes" that suit your argument. I can imagine that it may be difficult for some, especially those that have been farming a certain way for a number of years, to accept that some of the methods they are using may have detrimental effects on the environment and health. I am all for science, technology, and automation. Our knowledge continues to progress and "the only thing constant in life is change."

Sorry, I tend to look at these kinds of studies and question their motives/methodology. When I see information left out, skewed or "assumptions" being made I tend to become a bit jaded.

Lloyd

"and I would bet that a significant portion of those willing to do so base their decisions on ecological, rather than nutritional or economic criteria."

I probably am not one of those. I consider health and economy over ideology first at the market. I feel that those two items are more pressing in my consciousness than altruism...especially if I have no links to the producer.

I understand that some here that are not organic gardeners/farmers and do not believe this method of working the soil works also do not believe my soil tests, done by Michigan State University people. When we startd out here, some 45 years ago, the initial soil tests showed a pH of 5.7 and below optimum levels of Phosphorus, Potash, Calcium, and Magnesium. The recommendations from the MSU people were to apply large amounts of Dolomitic Lime to correct the pH and fairly large amounts of P and K sources to correct the low P and K levels.
I did not do that and instead worked on getting the soil organic matter levels up from less then 1 percent to the around 8 percent I maintain today. Soon after getting the humus levels up the soil pH test said 7.2 and the P and K levels became High Optimal.
There are those here that will state that what I have written here is not possible and I, therefore, must be incorrect. What I did has been replicated by others in many different areas of the world, in many different soil types, so it can be done. However, One person I have corresponded with has stated several times that Organic Gardening does not work because they tried it one year and saw that it did nothing. If you start with a dead soil it will take some time for it to become alive, it takes time for the Soil Food Web to begin to work, to become established. The SFW will not magically appear overnight.
Being organic has little or nothing to do with religious ferver but with recognizing what is really out there that does state that organic gardening/farming does work. Those that do not believe organics does are simply not accepting the good, valid research that shows it does.

kimmsr, I'd be interested to see who you think does "not believe this method of working the soil works".

IMO, some of the organic proponents have more of a cult mentality where they can not comprehend that there are flaws in their way of thinking. To these followers, anyone who is not with them, is against them, and they refuse to accept that there can be a middle ground (no pun intended) where some practises of organics can be combined with some practises of conventional to come up with a wholly satisfactory system.

Most of us that are not 'organic' are not against organics, we just see the reality of the present world in the bigger picture. In fact, I'd be willing to bet a cup of coffee and a donut that a few of us non-organicers have adopted some organic practises we've read about either in this forum or linked to from this forum.

Lloyd

For myself, I am willing to be a bit of a fanatic when it comes to my spiritual soil life. I see so many great present and future realities that it is worth giving my whole heart to it.

When it comes to my garden soil life, I believe there is enough present evidence to put many organic practices into practice. I am not likely to chase after bio-dynamics [as I see it] or organic certification as I am not selling anything.

I do care about health and try to raise healthy food. I also supplement as I am older and the body slows down in stomach acid production which means that minerals are not absorbed as well as they were at 20 yrs. of age. Also hormones and enzyme production slows down.

Organic requires moving of compost and heavy material, still pollution sorry to say, ever more sometimes.

Dumping oil in the ground does nothing, driving in huge v8 cars does nothing, farming synthetic does nothing!!!!!

It is the rate we do it.

If we stopped farming synthetic the world would still be polluted. If we stoped over populating and placed very strict laws to do so, the world would be a great place.

I am very sorry everyone I wrote this in the wrong place^

I believe that God has chosen earth for some very special purposes. I believe it has a long future. Still, I believe that according to the Bible it has a baptism of fire coming. While I believe we should be worthy stewards of what has been entrusted to us, I don;t believe that things are going to continue as they are much longer. All things are coming to a head [harvest time]. This belief does color my thinking about the future. That's why I cannot give my whole heart to these temporal things. I believe the future is in God's hands, not just man. Man alone would just go from bad to worse.

Strong words wayne 5

Thank you, MasterGardener. I was very bashful as a boy, but believe in telling it as I believe it...in a decent way...otherwise after years on GW, some things need to be said sometime or hypocrisy is me.

I defy anyone to figure out where to get organic sources of P and K and trace elements for hundreds of square kilometers of low fertility soils in the SE US, soils which commonly have been leached for tens of millions of years in a humid warm climate and consist of nonreactive quartz sand and, where texture is a bit better, extremely leached kaolinitic clays. You can organically grow a little organic matter and N into the soil, but you must haul in P and K . . . by the vast tonnage.

gonebananas - what is the rational reason for attempting large-scale agriculture where soil and water conditions don't support it? People started farming areas such as this because land was cheap - because it was functionally useless - and inputs were cheap. Now, with fuel prices rising and water increasingly scarce, those lands will revert to being considered non-viable for agriculture. Some will get out fat and happy, if they haven't already, some may adopt alternative practices or crops, but I suspect most will throw in the towel and turn to solar energy, wind farms, and mining. Farming bad land is an exercise in futility, especially using practices that can't improve the land over the long term.

Probably a fairly large area of the SE US is either hilly, overworked, or leached. Much of it might grow fruit and forestry products that if managed well, might be their main purpose.

I am thinking that cotton [the fiber itself] may be mostly carbohydrates? If so, they might be easier on the land if all residue is returned and some green crops included.....Still, I like peanuts!

There are as many reasons to grow organic as there are people doing it. Religion, politics and other things are the message those people want to, or, are unintentionally conveying in their message. It would be the same IMO if they were talking about wood working, sports, or numerous other hobbies. In other words, people like to talk about what interests THEM.
on topic: the kid may have a future in politics :)

Yep, a warm climate with high evapotranspiration rates and non-reactive ancient quartz sand soil, reaches it's US apex in florida.

I agree with bi11, such regions should not be used for large-scale farming. Having busted my rump for the last 7 years trying to create some kind of sustainable food production in that situation, I can safely say: very difficult, very low returns. Appropriate tree crops mixed with very low intensity annual crops is much more promising.

My perspective on organic approaches to food production is influence heavily by my scientifically oriented mind and my scientific education (Wildlife biology/ecology). My garden is grown, for the most part by organic principles; not because I believe in organic farming as a religious ideology but becuase organic gardening takes advantage of principles of ecology and soil science to maximize plant production. Soils are the most valuable aspect of a garden and poor soil management leads to declining soil quality which in turn leads to reduced production. There is a fad aspect to the organic, no till, squarefoot gardening, and other methods. I acknowledge that and don't get caught up in them. However, what makes them work is that someone understood the underlying science behind some aspect of natural soil health( ex. soil structure, ecology, nutrient cycling) and creativly came up with a method of soil management that improves soil health. Organic farming is really just good soil management. Its a more intellectual way to garden.

I tend to think of organic methods, and conventional methods, as tools in my tool belt to use when appropriate. So in that regard, I do not strictly use organic methods. Secondarily for me, it is a matter of control. I control how much diversity of different crops I grow in my garden. I control which, when and how much pesticide and fertilizer if any I use. Therefore I control how much of those fertilizers and pesticides get into my families food. And therefore I control how much of these contaminants get into my wife and children. Therefore I tend to be conservative with them if they are used at all.

Nicely stated.

There is clearly an issue with terminology. Organic would mean following the absolute rules for organics. If any non-approved pesticides are used, can it still be called "organic"?

Lloyd

"Transitional" would be my (optimistic) term for a mixed-methodology.

One market gardener who was not willing to bother jumping through the hoops for the certified organic label calls their products: natural grown.

Organic now implies a defined set of parameters. There are a lot of new labels being applied by those who don't want to do the government shuffle. I favor "responsibly grown," but that carries its' own set of baggage, and necessitates a defensible definition as well.

Know your farmer has merit also.

Well said Kevinitis.

I had to bring this up!!! I agree 100%

Another thing, Organic has higher antioxidants in it then conventional. If they say it is not true, it is becasue they compair it with poor grown organic.

Chemicals do certain things for a plant like using a 3-2-4 in a vegatative state then drop the N and rise the P_K so like 2-5-6. What you have is a really healthy crop producing higher yieds then organic, ok.

Say I make one compost pile, bananas and fruit and veggies all high in P-K and Ca/Mg. Then a compost with manure and clippings making a high N fertilizer. Using them in teas, droping the N and raising P-K when needed.

There I beat Chemicals with nature, and I am sure many of you do this too, and there are many organic fertilizers that do this too. BUt we can do it at home in 2 different compost piles.

John Jeavons is a strong advocate, with citations, for vegetable-based composts (as opposed to manure-based) that are primarily made with plant roots. This does make sense in terms of the available nutrient analysis vs. the above ground parts (according to his data), and thus it is at least theoretically possible to create a "custom compost" that meets the general goals of a specific N-P-K ratio, but I suspect that the precision would leave much to be desired. My gut tells me that, because most "organic" amendments (I'm NOT talking fertilizers) are comparatively slow release and long duration, the plants, micro-organisms, and mycorrhizae will actually work in symbiosis to make those nutrients available, and possibly even adapt or evolve in order to do so. To me, this explains the "buffering effect" that so many growers attribute to compost over the long term.

"what is the rational reason for attempting large-scale agriculture where soil and water conditions don't support it?"

In the SE US the water conditions DO support it. And the low fertility of soils can easily be overcome by fertilizer and crop residues. Furthermore, for many fruit and vegetable crops they can hit an early marketing-season target for the (over)populated NE US and the upper midwest.

There are plenty of good reasons to cultivate this naturally poor-in-fertility soil landscape. Additionally, the sandy lands don't erode readily and can be worked in almost any moisture condition, other distinct advantages.

I have to suspect that the soil-fertility limitations would not be viewed as arguments against large-scale agriculture in this region if natural rock phosphate, and guano, and wood ashes or marl were still being used. It is the synthesized ammonium nitrate, superphosphate, and potassium chlodide that rankles. And all the pesticides that a warm moist climate promotes the use of too.

To gonebananas, I have been thinking about your post for a few days now and I may have an answer for you. Maybe not. Here it goes. If I owned hundreds or even thousands of kilometers of low productivity cultivated lands, and I wanted a source of organics, I would think about opening a green waste facility either on my farm or in the nearest city. I would then charge people a small fee or (maybe for free, or even pay people) for their green waste and then I would compost it over the next year. I would separate the fine types like grass, manures, leaves etc, and chip the wood products. I would then mix these two products to compost. Then I would take all of that compost out to my fields and apply them as far as it would go. I think if you had any left over compost, it would be easy to sell to the public. If not you have at least replaced some of your fertilizer costs with organic materials that would provide time release nutrients, increase your water holding capacity and thus probably increase your yeilds. So if you had a lot of space/land you could do this pretty easily. In the long run it would probably save you money on fertilizers and increase your yeilds. Just saying... there probably is a way.

Your answer applies to what an organic-enthusiast farmer growing on a moderate size farm could do. Some indeed do it.

It does not readily apply to the regular farmer, especially the large acreage farmer (many now) who needs to go with whatever works well agronomically and economically.

City nutrient-rich waste is simply not plentiful enough. We are talking about vast acreages, vast numbers of square miles, of intensively cropped farmland. You would have to ship in vast tonnages from the urban NE US. The main city waste that is readily available now is the sludge from sewage treatment plants and that is indeed used to an extent, though to widespread fear and complaint from citizens including organic "pure"-growing types. It is mostly placed on farmland as a method of disposal and secondarily as a source of nutrients. It does provide appreciable phosphorus though, and some but not all have useful amounts of nitrogen. (It would probably better be placed at low dosage on our vast area of planted and managed pine forest.)

Chemical fertilizers and crop wastes (e.g., turning under corn stalks and cotton and soybean stems) work just fine for big farmers now. Why would they change? The "destruction" of the soil by chemical fertilizers is simply a myth, at least in SEUS (and probably everywhere). Farmers see no need to stop using regular fertilizer. When and if fertilizers become significantly more expensive you might see more interests in shifting. Or if landfilling costs or space limits rise significantly and on-farm disposal under the guise of fertilization become an option the farmers might accept it if of trivial cost (then they will push for free, then they will charge to accept it, if history is any guide). A city with an environmentally responsible majority might accept a bit of extra cost in processing their trash and garbage into a useful agricultural compost at low cost of sale. You might find such a community in Canada, or far NW or far NE US, but you will surely not find it in the American southeast (some university-dominated town or small city might someday plausibly be an exception, but even then likely with a federal subsidy or resaerch grant).

Pesticides have been linked to cancer and other ill effects, plain and simple; some have been banned, others have not. Many growers do not use pesticides and achieve great production and food quality.

A research report or laboratory test not finding evidence for a claim does not mean that the claim is not true or without merit. What the test or study was looking for and how it was conducted, the details, are very important. Pounds per acre or % protein may not be the best measurements to assess crop value. % protein may be a good indicator of plant nutrition if a wide range of nutrients and minerals within the plant is necessary for the plant to produce higher protein %. Perhaps the information is available, but I have not found many reports on nutritional profiles or elemental analyses of different crops.

What we are asking for is not one simple change, but rather a re-thinking of the system that has been in use for some time. Rotation of multiple crops, keeping 'residues' or 'wastes' on the land, and efficient use of space are key. Machines have been built to till, plant, fertilize, and harvest; there is no reason why these machines cannot be redesigned, re-purposed, or simply reused for organic practices and run on solar power. The goals are not to serve an organic deity, but to improve long term human health and sustainability.

"Organic farming is really just good soil management."-Kevinitis

yes organic farming is good soil management and is probably the number one reason to farm this way, next to human and environmental health.

Cultivating in less ideal areas has been achieved by a number of civilizations. Many areas in the world still farm using traditional farming methods that have been used for thousands of years. Shoot look at what the Inca did, they built some amazing grow beds on the sides of mountains!

I think that industrial farming complicates cultivation. Growing food in good healthy soil is easy, compared to the many hours spent fertilizing poor soils. The amount of energy needed to make commercial fertilizers is ridiculous, again when compared to traditional methods.

Less is more in a sense. I read a post in this forum referring to growing less but more nutritious crops. I could agree more.

My grandpa showed me how to grow a small garden, just like his father did for him. This method was around long before the term organic was marketed and wasn't labeled "organic" it was just how you farmed.

hydro organic for me is an attempt to move organics indoors, nothing more.

The "destruction" of the soil by chemical fertilizers is simply a myth

Can you back up that statement with some data? Because there are some pretty solid results from years of chemical use in the midwest that say otherwise.