Organic VS. Non-Organic

Believe it or not conventional farming is down to a science,, where as organic farming is not when scientists are just breaking into soil biology us pot heads tend to think we know it all lol
we tend to think that cause we use chemicals that we ingest it also here are some facts 99.9 percent chemicals humans ingest are natural , the amount of synthetic pesticide residue are insignificant compared to the natural pesticides plants produce them selfs Quote from Dr Ames
so if this is the case ask your self what is better for you one application of synthetic pesticide to get rid of what ever problem or 10 applications of a organic pesticide ???

^Actually if you knew all that much about organic agricultural you'd realize that it A. can indeed save the world and B. it can produce/yield as much if not more over time than our current 'conventional' or industrialized farming practices. When you apply synthetic/chemical fertilizers to crop lands any increase in yield you'll see is temporary. Let's say you get a 30% increase in yield for one growing season. Over the next several seasons chances are you'll see yield drop more and more as soil health/tilth decline.

These are problems we are facing right now. Ammonia, et al. destroy humus. The worst thing about this is that while conventional farming practices are destroying humus they're also doing nothing to build it up, because no or disproportionate amounts of organic matter are being supplied to the soil in order to do so. Humus is extremely important both to soil biota and to the ability of plants to acquire nutrients. So not only are we affecting the sustainability factor; we're growing crops that have less nutritive value.

Darth Vapour said:

Here Black in white your going to need double the land organic then it would take to yield conventional thems are facts

Click to expand...

That is grade A bullshit right there. When you farm monocultures and have killed off all the natural predators that would otherwise have helped protect your crop you're in deep shit. To make matters worse your target pests have developed resistance to the pesticides you were applying. What now? Well now, not if but when the pest finds your crop it is screwed.

Conventional farming is a pseudoscience if there ever was one.

How Organic Fertilizer Works: http://www.opcgrows.com/pdf/organic-fertilizer-vs-chemical-fertilizer.pdf
As for Dr. Ames:

Myth #5: Natural carcinogens in food are more dangerous than pesticide residues, so pesticides are not worth regulating.

This is an extremist view, not supported by replicated peer-reviewed studies and not accepted by the scientific or regulatory community. The principal proponent of this view is Dr. Bruce Ames, a prominent Berkeley biochemist. Many scientists have detailed the flaws in the Ames theory.

First, Ames brands many natural substances as carcinogens on the basis of flimsy or equivocal evidence, such as causing tumors only from a high dose, precisely the argument he rejects when applied to man-made carcinogens (NRC 1993a, Perrera et al. 1988 ).

Second, some of the natural carcinogens cited by Ames are not carcinogens at all. One of his top three alleged natural carcinogens, d-limonene, is not considered carcinogenic by any credible regulatory or international scientific agency (Huff 1993, EPA 1994b).

Third, Ames looks at only a handful of pesticides in the food supply, dramatically understating the total load of cancer-causing pesticides in food and water. Dr. Frederica Perrera and colleagues constructed a more representative, but still incomplete, list of man-made carcinogens and found exposure to these compounds to be about equal to that of natural carcinogens cited by Ames. (Perrera et al. 1988 ).

Fourth, Ames incorrectly inflates exposure to natural carcinogens. For example, he assumes that everyone in the United States drinks a cup of comfrey tea each day when illustrating the danger of natural carcinogens, but uses far smaller average food consumption estimates for the entire U.S. population when calculating the dangers of DDT in the diet.

Fifth, Ames does not consider that children may get far higher doses of synthetic or natural carcinogens than adults, based on their unique eating habits.

Sixth, Ames ignores the fact that the risks from some man-made carcinogens are low precisely because these carcinogens have been regulated. The issue of natural vs. man-made carcinogens is one of ethics and common sense. Just because natural sources of cancer risk exist, it doesn't follow that we should add more synthetic carcinogens to the food, air, and water supply. Americans want avoidable cancer risks reduced, whether they are from naturally occurring aflatoxins or man-made pesticides.

Click to expand...

http://www.ewg.org/research/industrys-myths/myth-5-natural-carcinogens-food-are-more-dangerous-pesticide-residues

nullis

Ten years ago, Certified Organic didn't exist in the United States. Yet in 2010, a mere eight years after USDA's regulations officially went into effect, organic foods and beverages made $26.7 billion. In the past year or two, certified organic sales have jumped to about $52 billion worldwide despite the fact that organic foods cost up to three times as much as those produced by conventional methods. More and more, people are shelling out their hard-earned cash for what they believe are the best foods available. Imagine, people say: you can improve your nutrition while helping save the planet from the evils of conventional agriculture - a complete win-win. And who wouldn't buy organic, when it just sounds so good?

what is one of the top things people went to eatting organic food ??? it was for to get away from pesticides 93 percent in a survey said this
organic farming; it's merely to point out that it's not as black and white as it looks. Organic farming does have many potential upsides, and may indeed be the better way to go in the long run, but it really depends on technology and what we discover and learn in the future. Until organic farming can produce crops on par in terms of volume with conventional methods, it cannot be considered a viable option for the majority of the world. Nutritionally speaking, organic food is more like a brand name or luxury item. It's great if you can afford the higher price and want to have it, but it's not a panacea. You would improve your nutritional intake far more by eating a larger volume of fruits and vegetables than by eating organic ones instead of conventionally produced ones.
What bothers me most, however, is that both sides of the organic debate spend millions in press and advertising to attack each other instead of looking for a resolution. Organic supporters tend to vilify new technologies, while conventional supporters insist that chemicals and massive production monocultures are the only way to go. This simply strikes me as absurd. Synthetic doesn't necessarily mean bad for the environment. Just look at technological advances in creating biodegradable products; sometimes, we can use our knowledge and intelligence to create things that are both useful, cheap (enough) and ecologically responsible, as crazy as that idea may sound.



I also firmly believe that increasing the chemicals used in agriculture to support insanely over-harvested monocultures will never lead to ecological improvement. In my mind, the ideal future will merge conventional and organic methods, using GMOs and/or other new technologies to reduce pesticide use while increasing the bioavailability of soils, crop yield, nutritional quality and biodiversity in agricultural lands. New technology isn't the enemy of organic farming; it should be its strongest ally.



As far as I'm concerned, the biggest myth when it comes to organic farming is that you have to choose sides. Guess what? You don't. You can appreciate the upsides of rotating crops and how GMOs might improve output and nutrition. You, the wise and intelligent consumer, don't have to buy into either side's propaganda and polarize to one end or another. You can, instead, be somewhere along the spectrum, and encourage both ends to listen up and work together to improve our global food resources and act sustainably.

I don't give a shit about the commercialization of the USDA's version of "organic" agriculture or the lobbying involved, or the price-point of ostensibly organic procude products. However, you're still discounting that industrial agriculture is not sustainable. And saying that if conventionally produced produce is less nutritious we should just eat more of it does not logically follow. Just for kicks, though, have you ever compared or verified the nutritional content on organically-labeled foods as opposed to their counterparts where available?

The real solution is more small-scale, locally operated farms that use sensible practices. It is 100% bullshit to say that organic farms would require twice the land to produce the same. You're still ignoring the fact that "conventionally" farmed land becomes increasingly less tenable and productive as soil health declines.

There is no way in hell you can tell me that an organism we have genetically modified "might improve output and nutrition (of all things)" and this is a statement based upon some pretty wild conjecture. Sensible farming practices and smaller farms (collectively occupying the same amount of land) would go much further to that end. Again, we're failing to acknowledge the integrated systems involved here. Bt Corn for example, supposedly the proteins produced aren't at all toxic to humans. However, some studies beg to differ.

Caen/ Munich, 17. February, 2012. Insecticidal Bt toxins such as those produced in genetically engineered plants can be detrimental to human cells. This is a result of recent research led by researchers at the University of Caen (France). Their experiments showed that toxins produced in, for example, the genetically engineered maize MON810, can significantly impact the viability of human cells. The effects were observed with relatively high concentrations of the toxins, nevertheless there is cause for concern. For the first time, experiments have now shown that they can have an toxic effect to human cells. According to companies like Monsanto, which produces genetically engineered maize with these toxins, the toxins are supposed to be active only against particular insects and should have no effect on mammals and humans at all. The investigation of effects of Bt toxins on human cells is not a requirement for risk assessment in Europe or in any other region.

Click to expand...

Let's assume that Bt proteins themselves at the dosages present are not at all toxic to humans (which is one big assumption). We still don't know how they interact with other components of the environment. They have been shown to be detrimental to other organisms such as Monarch butterfly larvae, for example. Corn borers (the target pest) can still become resistant to the Bt toxins. Pests have indeed already become resistant to Bt toxins made by GMO corn.

It's a sham to say that GMOs will 'reduce pesticide' usage. The fact is that GMO corn was designed to produce a pesticide all by itself, because it contains genes taken from a strain of bacterium that produces those substances in nature. However, GMO corn is producing them in 'unnatural' quantity.

opposite i am saying conventional synthetic crops blow organic yields out of the water as well as nutrition lets face it
There is no scientific Data stating organic is better or worse
we are in a MJ forum i grow organic simple and easy out door
indoor organic is just that not quite there as insects , rodents natural occuring events all play a crucial role in true organic growing and indoor tends to be not there indoor where growers tend to try to keep room sterile
and remember anything man gets his hands on he ruins and fucks up there has been soil tests / under ground water tests proving also that organic tends to leach more into soils contaminating water supplies also in other terms catch crops here is a good read
showing how organic farming although many tend to think its much more enviromentally friendly forgets one of the most important concepts N leaching and test studies have shown organic farming N leaching is significantly greater then conventional


http://orgprints.org/4637/2/4637.pdf

PS have a nice day

We used to improve crop traits such as yield and pest resistance via selective breeding. This is working in conjunction with natural selection/evolution as opposed to against it and throwing it off balance. Genetically modifying organisms and releasing them into the biosphere in droves is like driving with your eyes closed imagining you're on a plane where nothing else exists.

Darth Vapour said:

there has been soil tests / under ground water tests proving also that organic tends to leach more into soils contaminating water supplies also in other terms catch crops here is a good read
showing how organic farming although many tend to think its much more enviromentally friendly forgets one of the most important concepts N leaching and test studies have shown organic farming N leaching is significantly greater then conventional

Click to expand...

Did you even read what you posted?

Several factors influence N leaching loss, and this emphasises the importance of using representative data when comparing organic and conventional farming practices. Organic mixed dairy farms lose less N through leaching than conventional mixed dairy farms, primarily due to differences in N inputs. Organic arable farms are increasing their soil N pool, but their N leaching losses are comparable to those of conventional arable farms. Catch crops can be important tools in reducing N leaching loss, especially on sandy soils where N leaching loss can be higher than on sandy loam soils.

Click to expand...

Keyword "comparable" not "significantly greater", which you pulled out of your ass. It's no surprise that N leaching would be greater for sandy soils. Applications rates of both forms of N fertilizer would certainly also matter, as well as the climate, presence of soil biota and yes crop management practices. Nitrates are a tiny little piece of the puzzle for which you fail to see the larger picture of.

But What the biggest thing people are turning to organics is pesticides consumers thinking there getting pesticide / chemical free organic food which is a lie many organic famrers use chemical pesticides and get away with it to think cause organic or natural pesticide is harmless one should think again
Take the example of Rotenone. Rotenone was widely used in the US as an organic pesticide for decades 3. Because it is natural in origin, occurring in the roots and stems of a small number of subtropical plants, it was considered "safe" as well as "organic". However, research has shown that rotenone is highly dangerous because it kills by attacking mitochondria, the energy powerhouses of all living cells. Research found that exposure to rotenone caused Parkinson's Disease-like symptoms in rats 4, and had the potential to kill many species, including humans. Rotenone's use as a pesticide has already been discontinued in the US as of 2005 due to health concerns***, but shockingly, it's still poured into our waters every year by fisheries management officials as a piscicide to remove unwanted fish species.

Between 1990 and 2001, over 10,000 people fell ill due to foods contaminated with pathogens like E. coli, and many have organic foods to blame. That's because organic foods tend to have higher levels of potential pathogens. One study, for example, found E. coli in produce from almost 10% of organic farms samples, but only 2% of conventional ones10. The same study also found Salmonella only in samples from organic farms, though at a low prevalence rate. The reason for the higher pathogen prevalence is likely due to the use of manure instead of artificial fertilizers, as many pathogens are spread through fecal contamination. Conventional farms often use manure, too, but they use irradiation and a full array of non-organic anti-microbial agents as well, and without those, organic foods run a higher risk of containing something that will make a person sick. but at the end of the day its you as a consumer can you tell the difference from a conventional grown or organic grown product you might be surprised that you would probably fail the test

Rotenone is "mildly toxic to humans".

The University of Minnesota study found salmonella in one sample of organic lettuce and one sample of organic green peppers. The researchers collected 476 Minnesota produce samples from 32 organic farms and 129 samples from eight conventional farms. The produce analyzed included unwashed tomatoes, lettuce, green peppers, cucumbers, broccoli, apples and strawberries.

Click to expand...

Tell me that the sampling wasn't biased. Also, washing at the farm and other common sense sanitary/handling practices would have remedied any microbial contamination.

From: Cornucopia Institute
6/15/04
Contact: Mark Kastel 608.625.2042
Will Fantle 715-839-7731

The same right-wing think tank that conspired with John Stossel of ABC News, in an erroneous attempt to discredit organic food (subsequently forcing an apology from the network), is at it again. The Hudson Institute, and its father and son team of Dennis and Alex Avery, are attempting to spin a new report that actually concluded there was no "statistically different" risk in the pathogenic contamination of organic food verses its conventionally produced counterparts.

"For years, the Averys¹ have been banging the drum trying to suggest to consumers that organic food is somehow dangerous," said Mark Kastel, Director of the Organic Integrity Project at The Cornucopia Institute. "In this case, the study or any study is evidently enough ammunition for them to begin their indiscriminate potshots."

The report in question, published in the May issue of Journal of Food Protection, looked at produce grown on conventional and organic Minnesota farms during 2002. Less than 5 percent of the produce from conventional and organic farms showed contamination with any of the tracked pathogens in question, and that was before washing at the wholesale level, peeling off outer leaves, or a thorough washing once the produce arrives in the home of the ultimate consumer.

"This study was primarily designed to look at the use of composted manure verses chemical fertilizers at the farm level. The authors of this report intentionally did not concern themselves with what happened once the produce was washed and left the farm," Kastel said.

According to Francisco Diez-Gonzalez, the report's chief author and faculty member at the University of Minnesota, "I had a very heated discussion with Alex Avery of the Hudson Institute. They were very dissatisfied with our findings and told me that our interpretations were not 'correct.' They told me I should have known better than to look for E. coli 0157:H7, because we wouldn't find any."

Dr. Diez-Gonzalez is not surprised to learn that the Hudson Institute, with its long record and the backing of agribusiness giants like Monsanto and DuPont, is now trying to use the independently funded, University of Minnesota data to discredit organic farming.

Commenting on the Diez-Gonzalez study, Alex Avery called eating organic food ³a crap shoot² and warned that potential cases of diarrhea, typhoid fever and Reiter¹s Syndrome await its consumers. ³This statement is total a fabrication and a gross distortion of the Diez-Gonzalez study, charged Kastel. ³Alex Avery will say anything in his petty little war against organic food and farming²


The only criticism of the research, levied by The Cornucopia Institute, was that nearly 80 percent of the samples taken during the study came from organic farms and only 20% from conventional operations. "If conventional produce was represented as a higher percentage of the total, maybe the findings would have looked even more favorable, in terms of the compareable safety of organic products," said the Cornucopia's Kastel. The conventional sampling was also extremely light in terms of the produce items that were most susceptible to contamination (leafy greens and lettuce).

Click to expand...

If you're really concerned about E. coli and pathogens let's talk about antibiotic resistance due to over use in farm animals.

Penn & Teller have done a lot of interesting albeit questionable 'investigations' for lesser educated Americans to watch. It sometimes makes for entertaining television and that's about it. I wouldn't put much faith in what they have to say as far as the sciences, biology, chemistry or ecology go.

I eagerly await your next source of misrepresented or ill-informed bs, or poorly conducted research study.

Nullis said:

Lol. Biobizz.

Look I don't give a fuck if you assholes don't get it, really. I'm a chem/bio student and I understand that most people are idiots when it comes to that stuff. If you have to resort to saying bullshit like:
God help you. It's way above your ignorant heads and you're not interested in educating yourself so pull out a straw man.

As for pseudobotanist and my ad hominen attack, you obviously weren't interested in any reasonable discourse where actual science/chemistry or facts are concerned in regards to organics considering you couldn't even respond to any of that. If you were only interested in retorting contingent truisms you could have found a mirror, or a wall.

Click to expand...

Sounds like one big environmental guilt trip and using organics to save the world is already flawed by population increase as factually stated by the worlds environmental council, if you need a citation would be happy to throw some at you.

Nullis said:

We better keep it up then, right?

Click to expand...

Dont worry, most say its too late and are resulting to non organic chemistry for the answer.



Wasnt the one being ignorant just makes me laugh with that 'save the planet' bs

Youve had 30 years of saving the planet, you need me to cite where this DOSENT work! or are you happy for me not to cripple your ass with world pollution levels that have steadily risen with no hope of reversing the truth.

Be a pleasure to cite you environmentalists into the ground?

Darth Vapour said:

you guys are nuts seriously this can all come down to sustainability and feeding the world you think organics is saving the planet one must really think again ?? Its Not although growing organic is falling under the natural cycle of decomposition of all living things on earth life , death decompose and back to life ,, this is a small process that happens on our lovely planet
were not going to save to world by going organic organics does not mean better quality nor does it mean better yields actually the opposite occurs
The world is living and changing we seeing it more as through the internet trending news is all around us all the time
With the earth changing so does climate its been proven in the past global warming an cooling trends and such the migration of humans from Africa to all over the world we got to snap out of this organic is the only way of growing and saving the world sorry it will never happen NEVER with the amount of farmlands being changed into urban dwellings now and over population of people how can anyone think organic farming will save us all
first off organics tend to yield less in farm applications there fore or organic farming to compete we would need to chop more forests down to make adiquite farm land for organics to compete
Here Black in white your going to need double the land organic then it would take to yield conventional thems are facts

Click to expand...

They wont believe you, they still think organics will save this grossly overpopulated world!

Right. Sure wish I was born in the 70's. Nice to know saving the planet via organic agriculture lies entirely on my shoulders.

You must think I'm God or something. Please though, cite where there doesn't work despite having never tried and not enough data being available.

I love assholes like you though, really. "Well, we've already fucked our planet up through various irresponsible human activities so screw it! Let the raping continue!"
Fuck you.

Just know that the argument about organics at a planet saving levels has little to do with growing weed for the purpose of getting high so why always bring it up!

Now if you actually want to discuss organics based on a global level start a thread and id be happy to rap by and point out that wether or wether not the world has reached some catastrophic tipping point the human race is unable to stop its yearly increase in pollution. Nitrofication of the planet is just one of many signs were pretty screwed like an itch before a rash.

In a lot of cities the air has reached unsafe toxic levels, at what point do you think this is good on a green planet?

Id say wake up and smell the coffee but you cant for all the pollution.

You have no right to act green or planet concious until you have a carbon footprint of zero and trust me you dont.

Lead by example not hope others follow your bs?

You don't even know what you're talking about brother. You don't know me; what I think; what I believe or what I do. And you can't actually respond to any of the things me and pseudobot were talking about except to say "you can't save the planet, you can't save the planet, it's too late for you, it's too late for you, your carbon footprint isn't zero, blah blah blah".

All you know about me is what I've sold you.

So I've got some
Advice for you, little buddy.
Before you point your finger
You should know that
I'm the man,

If I'm the fuckin' man
Then you're the fuckin' man as well
So you can
Point that fuckin' finger up your ass.

Click to expand...

Nullis said:

^Actually if you knew all that much about organic agricultural you'd realize that it A. can indeed save the world and B. it can produce/yield as much if not more over time than our current 'conventional' or industrialized farming practices. When you apply synthetic/chemical fertilizers to crop lands any increase in yield you'll see is temporary. Let's say you get a 30% increase in yield for one growing season. Over the next several seasons chances are you'll see yield drop more and more as soil health/tilth decline.

These are problems we are facing right now. Ammonia, et al. destroy humus. The worst thing about this is that while conventional farming practices are destroying humus they're also doing nothing to build it up, because no or disproportionate amounts of organic matter are being supplied to the soil in order to do so. Humus is extremely important both to soil biota and to the ability of plants to acquire nutrients. So not only are we affecting the sustainability factor; we're growing crops that have less nutritive value.

That is grade A bullshit right there. When you farm monocultures and have killed off all the natural predators that would otherwise have helped protect your crop you're in deep shit. To make matters worse your target pests have developed resistance to the pesticides you were applying. What now? Well now, not if but when the pest finds your crop it is screwed.

Conventional farming is a pseudoscience if there ever was one.

How Organic Fertilizer Works: http://www.opcgrows.com/pdf/organic-fertilizer-vs-chemical-fertilizer.pdf
As for Dr. Ames:
http://www.ewg.org/research/industrys-myths/myth-5-natural-carcinogens-food-are-more-dangerous-pesticide-residues

Click to expand...

Yep i dont know you except fot RiU but what your selling youve wrote about exstensively in this thread.

The fact that its not a debate youll ever solve here negates your belligerence in constantally quoting it my good sir!

Put it this way-

If synthetic ferts gave you twice the yield of organics us weed growers wouldnt give two shits about the planet!

It seems to me that as an indoor grower of MJ my nute sources are going to have very little affect on the planet. As far as the taste, well, I first use very small amounts. 1/2 tsp per gl. every water, cut in half a couple weeks into flower, cut to nothing around day 50 in a 70 day plant. So, the last 8 waterings are water only. (Sometimes RO, most times natural spring) All waterings are to runoff which is dumped. Don't really have any salt build up and you won't find much for heavy metals in my peat or my water. Bottom line, pretty sure "my" weed taste and degree of harshness comes from its strain and the quality of my cure not my nute choice.