My experience is that the progeny of organically grown plants are stronger and healthier--Last summer, my husband & I planted 3 types of potatoes from the supermarket--not recommended, but we did it anyway:). 2 were non-organic, the other was organic. The organically grown seed potato jumped out way ahead of the conventional seed potatoes. We used the same organic methods growing all of these. According to Camille Kingsolver (Barbara's daughter) in Animal, Vegetable, Miracle, this is because plants that have to fend for themselves are genetically stronger than plants that are dependent on heavy loads of synthetic chemicals (fertilizers, pesticides) to do the work for them. Thus, the justification for the higher price is a naturally genetically stronger plant. But the choice is yours--couldn't say how many generations of seed saving it would take to build that strength back into the plant, but it's got to happen eventually. You may need to be more vigilant about selecting seed from the more vigorous plants if you decide to go the conventional seed route. I prefer organic seed when I can get it purely for results. Here is a link that might be useful: About Animal, Vegetable Miracle

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.

In regards to Louisiana_botanist and anyone else interested in the effectiveness of Mosquito Barrier... I purchased two bottles of this to help combat the army of mosquitos that we had just in our backyard. The first application I added a little more of the product than needed but we had severe mosquitos. The product claims to also repel fleas and ticks which is a plus since we have two dogs. I applied the stuff with a sprayer following instructions and sprayed entire yard and some of the tree near our patio. Once you apply it, your yard will smell like garlic for an hour or two so be sure to spray it in a way so you don't step on the grass that was just sprayed (I sprayed it walking backwards) so I didn't track the smell in the house. The next night we went to see how well it did, surprisingly enough it worked well. Instead of getting bit 8 times while constantly moving around for 2-3 minutes, I didn't get bit at all for 5 minutes while even standing still but I did see at least one mosqutio while out. It lasts for a good while so long as there isn't a heavy rain or you water the lawn more than once a week. General application would typically last 2-3 weeks for me due to needing to water at least twice a week and/or rain. The "barrier" tends to be breached by a few mosquitos as each day passes until they increase in numbers where you notice them again and need to spray a second application. Since I used to live in New Orleans I know how bad mosquitos can be there but I would say you will definately see a difference after using this. The cause of my mosquito problem was due to a neighbor with a water fountain in the backyard that had lots of standing water. Now that they have let it just dry out, I have 1/10 the mosquitos I had before and haven't needed to spray anything in over a month.

I'm not quite sure what is the point of this thread. In this one meta analysis, they reviewed 343 previous studies done, examining and measuring nutritional content of organic vs non organic vegetables. Is that right? Yet, after 343 studies done, they still find very little difference in the nutritional value of both groups. No difference that would actually support recommending one over the other for nutritional content. After 343 studies. That to me is a very large waste of time and money to do that many studies when the first 50 probably told you all you needed to know. I also have to wonder, who was paying for these studies? Is some organization trying to gain support for their point of view with 'scientific studies showâ¦'? At any rate, I haven't expected that organic produce has significantly higher amounts of nutrition over non organic produce. I simply understand that pesticides and fungicides actually are designed to kill bugs and fungus. Why would I want to eat foods that were sprayed with any kind of agent that can kill, even if it is just a small bug? And had them repeatedly applied? And that the soil that they are growing in has had years and years of them being applied? The other reason I choose organic gardening, is because an ecological system clearly exists. Why ignore that rather than try to understand it and work with the system rather than against it? None of these studies address either of those reasons why I choose organic.