To address paulns original propostion, I don't think it's a question that has a definitive answer without clarification.....what is "old-time gardening"? How far back does one go? And there are MANY definitions of organic gardening depending on one's philosophy, so which one are we going to agree to use? A lot of the previous comments are valid in a generalized form. The use of manufactured synthetic or chemically derived fertilizers has a pretty recent history when compared to how long man has been farming or growing crops for food. They are really only a by-product of the Industrial Revolution and the "hundreds of years" can actually be reduced to about 200, with the predominance of these fertilizers being widely accepted and used immediately after WWII, when they became cheaply and widely available, as greenwood85 notes. Same with synthetic, manufacture pesticides. And their introduction to the farming or gardening scene was considered at that time to be an enormous boon - a fast-acting, lightweight, easy to apply and easily accessible material that improved and increased harvests. Naturally - without the greater understanding we have now of soil science and the health implications of chemical residues and these products effects on pollution and ecology - they were widely accepted and utilized. It would be pretty hard to go back 50 or 60 years and not find a gardener or farmer that didn't use some form of manufactured fertilizer or pesticide. But even given these considerations, a good many of those gardeners/farmers from previous generations still incorporated what might be best termed "natural gardening" practices - composting, using animal manures, companion plantings, rotational cropping, home remedies for insect and disease controls - along with the manufactured products that at the time seemed like such a great improvement on what they had been doing. And affluence and location played a role as well - poorer farmers in more remote locations tended to use more what they had on hand - the natural methods and products rather than the newer, costly and more difficult to obtain manufactured ones. So I believe it is difficult to make a direct correlation between "old time gardening" and the organic or natural way unless you are going back more than just a 100 years or so.

Adding my 2 cents re: Acres. They call themselves a "voice for "ecological", not organic, agriculture. They are strong advocates for re-mineralization and biologically active soils. Extremely, and refreshingly, political, they strenuously oppose industrial agriculture and most attempts to regulate "the little guy". They look back, perhaps too fondly, to the writings of Albrecht and some of his contemporaries, who were the pioneers of agricultural investigation and education, before the chemical industry took over these fields. I read my monthly Acres newspaper enthusiastically AND critically. I'd prefer less "snake oil". They overly enthuse about certain new types of inputs-- albiet organic ones-- and they don't look at farms in the holistic, system-oriented way that most organic growers do. I agree that Rodale has gone downhill since the 70s. I have a small stash of old OG mags that I picked up at the second hand book store-- they're an absolute gold mine.

Brix studies are highly controversial...especially those dealing with tomatoes. If you're going to compare supermarket ethylene ripened toms to plant ripened toms you're going to get skewed brix results...the plants simply do it better than forcing the ripening, and it does have to do with better micronutrient availability. That said, there's a lot of high brix/low acid testing brix advocates that want people to put a foolish amount of micronutrients in their soil rather than building a soil structure/quality that can better hold and exchange micronutrients. There's a big industry building around selling people extremely expensive bags of micronutrients the past decade which wash their way through the soil profile and/or are over-amended to make up for poor soil. Build your soil quality (holding/exchange capability), apply less, benefit more. They're micronutrients...you don't need a lot, you just need them to hang around. This post was edited by nc-crn on Fri, Dec 28, 12 at 16:21

Of course, if you don't like it, it has to be a right wing conspiracy. Lol From the link I left above ~ American Council on Science and Health: "Additionally, the evidence regarding the effect of DDT on eggshell thinning among wild birds is contradictory at best. The environmentalist literature claims that the birds threatened directly by the insecticide were laying eggs with thin shells. These shells, say the environmentalists, would eventually become so fragile that the eggs would break, causing a decline in bird populations, particularly among raptors (birds of prey). In 1968 two researchers, Drs. Joseph J. Hickey and Daniel W. Anderson, reported that high concentrations of DDT were found in the eggs of wild raptor populations. The two concluded that increased eggshell fragility in peregrine falcons, bald eagles, and ospreys was due to DDT exposure.9 Dr. Joel Bitman and associates at the U.S. Department of Agriculture likewise determined that Japanese quail fed DDT produced eggs with thinner shells and lower calcium content.10 In actuality, however, declines in bird populations either had occurred before DDT was present or had occurred years after DDT’s use. A comparison of the annual Audubon Christmas Bird Counts between 1941 (pre-DDT) and 1960 (after DDT’s use had waned) reveals that at least 26 different kinds of birds became more numerous during those decades, the period of greatest DDT usage. The Audubon counts document an overall increase in birds seen per observer from 1941 to 1960, and statistical analyses of the Audubon data confirm the perceived increases. For example, only 197 bald eagles were documented in 194111; the number had increased to 891 in 1960.12 At Hawk Mountain, Pennsylvania, teams of ornithologists made daily counts of migrating raptors for over 40 years. The counts��"published annually by the Hawk Mountain Sanctuary Association��"reveal great increases in most kinds of hawks during the DDT years. The osprey counts increased as follows: in 1946, 191; in 1956, 288; in 1967, 457; and in 1972, 630.13 In 1942 Dr. Joseph Hickey��"who in 1968 would blame DDT for bird population decline��"reported that 70 per-cent of the eastern osprey population had been killed by pole traps around fish hatcheries.14 That same year, before DDT came into use, Hickey noted a decline in the population of peregrine falcons.15 Other observers also documented that the great peregrine decline in the eastern United States occurred long before any DDT was present in the environment.16,17 In Canada peregrines were observed to be “reproducing normally” in the 1960s even though their tissues contained 30 times more DDT than did the tissues of the midwestern peregrines allegedly being extirpated by the chemical.18 And in Great Britain, in 1969, a three-year government study noted that the decline of peregrine falcons in Britain had ended in 1966 even though DDT levels were as abundant as ever. The British study concluded that “There is no close correlation between the decline in population of predatory birds, particularly the peregrine falcon and the sparrow hawk, and the use of DDT.”19 In addition, later research refuted the original studies that had pointed to DDT as a cause for eggshell thinning. After reassessing their findings using more modern methodology, Drs. Hickey and Anderson admitted that the egg extracts they had studied contained little or no DDT and said they were now pursuing PCBs, chemicals used as capacitor insulators, as the culprit.20 When carefully reviewed, Dr. Bitman’s study revealed that the quail in the study were fed a diet with a calcium content of only 0.56 percent (a normal quail diet consists of 2.7 percent calcium). Calcium deficiency is a known cause of thin eggshells.21��"23 After much criticism, Bitman repeated the test, this time with sufficient calcium levels. The birds produced eggs without thinned shells.24 After many years of carefully controlled feeding experiments, Dr. M. L. Scott and associates of the Department of Poultry Science at Cornell University “found no tremors, no mortality, no thinning of eggshells and no interference with reproduction caused by levels of DDT which were as high as those reported to be present in most of the wild birds where ‘catastrophic’ decreases in shell quality and reproduction have been claimed.”23 In fact, thinning eggshells can have many causes, including season of the year, nutrition (in particular insufficient calcium, phosphorus, vitamin D, and manganese), temperature rise, type of soil, and breeding conditions (e.g., sunlight and crowding)." Al