#1. I don't think this has been proven one way or another. Most of the data I have seen says there is no nutritional difference between the two. I would be interested in anything that says otherwise. My family prefers organic produce, but that is based on taste.

#2. I don't understand why you might think container gardening wouldn't be organic. Is it easier via the artificial means? Yes. Can you grow plants in containers organically? Yes.

#3. I have not seen any data to support that claim.

Hope this helps

Responding to #2.

It is kind of like what does organic really mean anymore anyways, the term is becoming blurred in the marketplace.

#2 releated more to question #3 as to whether there was any validity to the immunity carry-over. Since containers do not have same same microbial content as the earth... blah, blah, blah..... :) Just curious for no other reason then knowing who won Miss USA. The answer doesn't chnage things.. :)

The nutritional content of your vegetables (container or otherwise) will always depend on the nutritional content of your soil. If your soil is lacking in a certain nutrient, micro-nutrient or mineral, it simply cannot appear in the vegetable out of thin air (some plants are the exception to this rather than the rule). If you ensure that your soil has a wide range of inputs from a wide range of sources, chances are you are better equiped to supply a well balanced nutritional base.

BTW, nutrition and organic don't necessarily go hand in hand. Using the right combination of synthetic/chemical fertilizers and organic matter in a responsible manner you can acheive the same results as organic means (from a nutritional perspective).

1. That depends on the soil used.
2. Yes.
3. Even the USDA has found that organically grown produce may have more nutrients today provided the soil they are grown in is well balanced, when compared to produce grown in a conventional garden soil that is not balanced, soil with little organic matter and when synthetic fertilizers containing only NPK are used to feed the plants.
So it all comes down to your soil.

The (container) soil used has little or nothing to do with the nutrition supplied to the plant. Hydroponics uses no soil and the plants get all the essential elements in the nutrient solution. Container culture is MUCH closer to hydroponics than it is to garden growing.

There are 6 factors that affect plant growth and yield; they are: air, water, light, temperature, soil, and nutrients. In container culture, it is the STRUCTURE of the soil, rather than what the soil is made of, that is most important. Liebig's Law of Limiting Factors states the most deficient factor limits plant growth, and increasing the supply of non-limiting factors will not increase plant growth. Only by increasing the most deficient factor will the plant growth increase. There is also an optimum combination of the factors and increasing them, individually or in various combinations, can lead to toxicity for the plant.

If a nutrient is deficient and mobile in the plant, the plant robs it from other plant parts. Growth seems to continue, but true growth is measured by the increase in bio-mass, which stalls when nutrients are unavailable. If the deficient nutrient is immobile, what appears to be new growth simply stops.

It would be reasonable (to the point of being elementary) to believe that soils with a full compliment of nutrients would produce better growth and yield than soils with nutrient deficiencies. Container soils that already have the other essential nutrients present via dolomite and a micro-nutrient supplement like Micromax, STEM, Earth Juice Microblast .... will be perfectly happy and the fruits nutritious when supplied with only NPK.

Al

earth based plantings are more nutritious in that the microbes in the ground pass on immunities through the plant and ultimately to you. Truth to this?

Wacky statement on so many levels I'm not sure what to say, except stop reading whatever it was that made that assertion.

There really is no suggested reading except perhaps a basic soil or botany book that explains how plants work and how they get molecules from the soil. This will allow you to amend your soil as needed. But basically as stated above, make your soil as nice as possible.

Dan

Wacky statement on so many levels I'm not sure what to say, except stop reading whatever it was that made that assertion.

rofl.. lol. :) I think I may follow your direction. :)

linchat: I assume that garden-grown vegetables are more nutritious than container-grown for a very simple reason: the extraordinary length of their roots. Cornell University put out a book in the 19020s on the roots of garden vegetables, which is on the web, and many of their diagrams are in John Jeavons's book. From memory, lettuce has 4-foot roots and beets have 12-foot roots, with all others in between.

So how does root length bear on nutrition? There are some very scarce minerals in the soil which are never-the-less essntial for plant health and therefore ours, because as a species we evolved eating plants. Selenium is a prime example. Forget about "16 minerals essential for plant growth", there are more likely to be 60, or more. Now plants absorb and transpire much more water than they need for turgidity and just as water. They are after the rare minerals, which is why they (with exeptions such as the crucifers) need mycchorizae (sp?) to extend their roots many times over. It follows thjen that they are propecting for as much mineral-containing groundwater as they can find. To make a long story short, putting plants in containers provides them with, let's say, only one-tenth of the access to scarce minerals they need. That said, container plants are much better than no plants. Regards, Peter.

Roots don't 'prospect'. They grow where cultural conditions are favorable and they don't grow where they are not. Plants that form symbiotic relationships with mychorrizal fungi have SMALLER root systems than plants that don't, and don't need the fungi for root extension.

I'm not sure where the rest of the information came from, but it flies in the face of known science and with all due respect, I think you're a little out of your depth with your offerings. 60 'essential' minerals for plant growth? Containerize plants have only 1/10 of the minerals needed? Please ...

Al

I must lean towards the side of Peter on this one. I have read that planting the right cover crop such as rye can do some "mining" for you when used for that reason. The roots sink down 3' and bring back minerals that are no longer in the top 6-8" of cultivated soil. I believe this to be true so I use rye in my rotation.

What are the 60 essential minerals? Selenium seems a poor example since it is toxic in small amounts so nobody/nothing would want to eat plants rich in it.

I do agree that there are substances not considered essential nutrients that may have a beneficial impact on some plants and I find this a fascinating area for 'playing around', but to say there are 60 or so 'essential' nutrients is going much too far.

I would even go so far as to say 99.9% of containerized plants *are* lacking in -non essential- stuff that may or may not be beneficial. I wouldn't point to selenium, but silicon as an example.

Bloosquall - what are you agreeing with? No one said cover crops are a bad idea or that they do or don't work. Peter said nothing about cover crops - he just made a number of very rash statements that are unsupportable. If you guys would like to dig out something scientific to support the assertions, I'm certainly ready to listen with an open mind.

Al

I agree with Al - echoing what I wrote above, the assertion is wrong on many levels.

Dan

justaguy and talpa: in reponse to your welcome criticism, let me add the following:

1. to say that there are 60 essential nutrients was inexcusable hyperbole. What I wanted to say, and will say, is that there are probably more essential nutrients for plant growth than "known science" has so far discovered. My evidence is the following: (a) the analysis of minerals in my body includes chromium, vanadium, iodine, lithium, selenium, strontium, barium, germanium, rubidium, and zirconium -- as well as others that you would expect. I have these assays done annually. When I am low on some of these my doctor prescribes supplements. I don't know if he would prescribe supplements for all of them, because I'm not low on all of them by any means. But he has prescribed selenium, germanium, and rubidium in the past. (b) in our evolutionary past these minerals came from plants, whether directly or via meat. Two things are possible, either plants absorb these minerals because they need them, or they absorb whatever is in the soil willy-nilly. I choose to believe the former; if you have evidence either way or of a third possibility I'm very open to hearing it.

2. I don't think I claimed that "lots of selenium" is a good or necessary thing for plants or people. Like most things, too much and too little are both bad. The normal range in humans is, I believe, something like 1 to 1.7 ppm. As to whether it's essential to plants, see 1 above. If it is essential to humans but not to plants, then our chances of obtaining it -- before the age of supplements -- would be rather hit-and-miss. I do know that it is rare or missing from mid-western soils.

3. Neither my assertions about the number of essential nutrients or selenium are at all essential to my central thesis that plants grown in containers had less access to minerals than those grown in gardens, so they are less nutritious. I was looking at the diagram of tomato roots in Jeavon's "How to Grow More Vegetables" the other day, which I'm sure was taken from the Cornell classic on vegetable roots. It shows 4' depth and 7' width -- much greater than most containers. I deduce that a tomato would have access to more soil and, therefore, more minerals than if it were in a container. This would count double for carrots which have an 8' root; but I don't know whether people grow carrots in containers.

So let us reason together, reasonably. Regards, Peter.

Peter I would agree with you that a plant grown in the earth has access to a greater variety of minerals and 'substances' than would be found in a a container.

One area of interest to me, as an example, is silicon. Found naturally in most soils, but not in container media. It may play a role in pest/disease prevention as well as transpiration regulation.

So, I don't disagree with your #3 above and have no reason to 'argue' #1 or #2.

I think there are a good number of elements that plants can be exposed to and we don't necessarily understand if it's good/bad or indifferent for the plant or for humans or other creatures consuming them.

I don't see evidence that a container grown plant, getting it's known nutritional needs met, is going to end up being less nutritious to eat than a field grown plant though. Perhaps they are in terms of something or the other, I haven't studied this topic much at all.

In terms of whether plants absorb what is in the soil 'willy nilly' or deliberately I would lean toward 'willy nilly' while retaining some ability to regulate. Plants absorb 'stuff' that is dissolved in the water they take up. Some can accumulate things such as lead, as one example.

But, I will digress as this isn't an area of expertise for me.

justaguy: I use silica also, in liquid form, as a drought resistant aid. I've also seen some USDA study material that shows plants respond to it. And I'm sure it's not on anyboby'e essential nutrients list.

The point you raise in the para: "I don't see evidence..." is the difficult one. I remember being floored by a question put to me in a talk where I was claiming that organic vegetables had a greater mineral content than conventional, thus: "Surely any plant that manages to grow and survive has its full complement of essential minerals, otherwise it couldn't survive, so how can another plant have more minerals?" After research and questioning my betters I decided that the willy-nilly characteristic was the clue. That is, that plants take up and store minerals in excess of their basic requirement if they are available, which becomes the basis for "nutrient-dense". I reason that a plant in the garden, having access to more soil and therefore more minerals, has more opportunity to build up and store that excess. Here's a reductio ad absurdum about this: imagine a tomato in an 8" pot. It wouldn't have room for its roots to reach the water and therefore nutients it needs. Then upsize the pot one level so its chances are better. And so on until its roots are no longer confined by the sides of the pot. At this point it will have the full ability to take up all the minerals it needs. And minerals equal nutition.

Now, I didn't read that in a book, so I can't impress anyone with sources. All I can do is observe and think hard about the mysteries that become evident from observation and wondering. Like you I'm not an expert in the field. I have taken couses in botany since I retired, but they only take one so far.

Regards, Peter.

justaguy: I use silica also, in liquid form, as a drought resistant aid. I've also seen some USDA study material that shows plants respond to it. And I'm sure it's not on anyboby'e essential nutrients list.

Just as a point of [potential] interest, it is my understanding that in Japan it is considered an essential plant nutrient for at least rice, possibly more.

In the US I am not aware of anyone placing such importance on it.

Here is the "problem" as I see it. Certainly there is more 'stuff' in a garden soil than there is in a proper container mix. We know what the 'essential' plant nutrients are and we know what the 'essential' human nutrients are.

What we don't know is what else plants and humans benefit from even though these 'things' aren't on anyone's 'essential' list.

Some things may be harmful, some wonderful, others largely irrelevant.

What I am confident of is that we won't learn anything more than we do today without sound science. As science reveals the other 'stuff' and the role it plays in plant/human health someone will find a way to put it into a bottle ;)

"We won't learn anything more than we do today without sound science"

It seems to me the hypothesis is that you can grow food in an artificial situation (eg. peat mixed with chemicals in a container) and have it equal the nutrition of food grown in garden soil, not the other way around. The burden of proof is on the container grower.

The burden of proof is on the container grower.

Already been done.

Another forum recently had someone link to a long-term study that produced empirical evidence of the basics.

There is zero reason to think containers would be less than soil. Zero.

Dan

You're awfully confident. Zero? A google scholar search of mycorrhiza + tomato turns up 9000+ studies. A lot still remains to be learned about soil - not so much constituents as relationships between constituents, in the same way relationships and interactions between constituents of the human body, the oceans, climate, etc. and of these things with each other, aren't yet understood by science.

Here is a link that might be useful: example

A google scholar search ...

And? How does this show what you want it to show? You don't say. Your...argument...would be strengthened if you showed that your search parameters back your assertion in some way.

The basic facts of botany and soil science are basic. The basic findings of why organic crops often have more nutrition than industrial ag has to do with soil health, not chemistry. Not that this has anything to do with containers.

That is: there is zero reason to believe that a container cannot deliver what a plant needs. Zero. Because of the basic facts of botany and soil science. As the above commenters have already said in response to the OP's questions.

Dan

If science doesn't know all there is to know about the relationship between soil and plants (look at the number of studies on this one topic, the effect of mycorrhiza, a constituent of good garden soil but not of container media, on tomatoes) then how is there 'zero reason to believe that a container cannot deliver what a plant needs'. Is what I was trying to say without overstating the obvious. We grow about 1/50th of our produce in containers in a small greenhouse, using garden soil with lots of compost in it (despite the recommendation to use sterile media). I don't worry much about the comparative nutritional value of this produce but I wouldn't want all my food to be container-grown, if I had a choice, which I do.

Science doesn't know all there is to know about anything. So what? It is a red herring and does not defend your original assertion.

This red herring does not back the claim that containers cannot contain all the nutritive requirements a plant needs.

Myco are not nutrition or nutrients. They aid uptake, they don't ensure it or make fruit more nutritious. Chemistry is chemistry.

Unless, of course, you are being coy and have performed some breakthrough experiment and are ready to publish something that will overturn all of the findings of botany. Let's hope it passes peer review and the findings are robust! Breakthroughs are fun and I hope your paper is published! and the world learns something new!

Dan

The link I posted addresses part of the original poster's question:
#3. I read at some point that earth based plantings are more nutritious in that the microbes in the ground pass on immunities through the plant and ultimately to you. Truth to this?
The study found that enhanced mycorrhizal relationship increased the plants' immunity but it doesn't make a link between immunity and nutrition.

That this study was found through Google Scholar doesn't mean it's a Google Paper.

I'm an artist, not a scientist, I admit to uncertainty about any number of things, and baiting you is hard to resist, Dan.

Going back to the question of flavour, from the other thread. We just got our seed potatoes from a new business, a small organic seed house in New Brunswick, the next province over. It included a paper on growing organic potatoes, which included this statement: "Organically grown potatoes have a higher fibre density which means they have more flavour."

Not reporting this as proof of anything but as another way of making the claim for the superiority of organic produce.

The owner/operator of the seed company wrote on the invoice, by hand, "Thanks Paul! Happy planting! (signed) A. :)"
Which was awfully nice, a rare touch, but makes me wonder how long a company with this level of customer service can last. Long, I hope.

The worst part of ignorance is not what we don't know, it's that what we think we know is simply wrong. These boards are a source of a lot of misinformation, and I would be very careful about dismissing the idea that food grown in the ground is no more nutritious than container grown food. And I think that most thoughtful food scientists will not dismiss the concept that plant exposure to microbes makes healthier food.

In fact, I would tend to think that traditional, non-hybrid seeds, planted in a virgin soil environment, would have better qualities than hybrid plants grown in plowed fields.

And that would make me think that plants grown with organic techniques, in the ground, are better than containerized plants.

There is chemistry, and there is organic chemistry, and there is much we do not know. The role of fulvic and humic acids, fungi in the environment, an active biological soil environment, new research is being done, new books are coming out.

And that would make me think that plants grown with organic techniques, in the ground, are better than containerized plants.

But you've given no evidence for this assertion, derived from a premise that is not germane to the subject.

Roots take in nutrients in elemental form - even in the presence of, say, humic acid (no acid performs magic and transforms the functions of roots).

If they are given proper nutrition, it matters not where plants are grown (assert this to someone with a grow op in a cannabis forum and see what happens - will you suddenly change all the grow ops in this country with this assertion? No way). Unless you are working on a treatise/lab experiment/field trial that shows otherwise, in which case I anxiously await your publication!

Dan