North American Fruit Explorers mailing list at ibiblio

[road's end farm <organic101@linkny.com>]

On Dec 14, 2007, at 12:51 AM, sdw12986@aol.com wrote:

> Rivka, you are wise

Thanks! Opinions on this issue seem to vary:   : )

On Dec 14, 2007, at 12:16 PM, Lucky Pittman wrote:

> \ most are well aware that strict 
> 'organic' methods, [. . . ]  are folly.

(Yes, I know that the two of you were answering entirely different posts, in different threads. I just couldn't resist quoting those two posts together.)

On Dec 13, 2007, at 8:44 PM, Alan Haigh wrote:

> Organicism, now there's a word, sounds like a cult religion.  Certainly we wouldn't describe the belief in organic agriculture as being anything like that.  You know, suggesting that  embracing modern chemistry in every other aspect of our existence but rejecting the use of even a single man-made chemical in our agriculture is somehow a little crazy.

On Dec 14, 2007, at 11:10 AM, halegp@aol.com wrote:

> What I mainly resent is that some of the "true believers" in organic horticulture seem to be attempting to make an evil doer of everyone who does not follow their procedures to the nth degree.

I'm sure that happens; I'm sorry that it's happened to you. I don't think I've ever seen it happen on this list, though; and I can assure you that I spend time around a lot of organic growers, very rarely hear anybody talk like this, and call them on it if I do.

But I can say, from the other side, that there's no way anybody's going to stay in organic farming for thirty years and not develop a bit of a thick skin. Why, so far, in this one discussion, I've been in effect called a fool, a cultist, and a little crazy. (The last one may be true, though I think not for that reason.)

While I don't usually bother to respond to posts like that, it's not because I waste my time being upset over them; it's because people who say things like that generally already have their minds made up, and aren't likely to be convinced by anything I type into an email post. Some such people do change their minds; but, when it happens, it's usually not because of anything somebody said or wrote to them, but because they've found themselves living in the immediate area of well-run organic farms, and have been convinced by the evidence on the ground.

However, since there does now seem to be evidence of a genuine discussion going on here, I'll go so far as to respond to a couple of particular statements which come into the category of "common misperceptions":

On Dec 14, 2007, at 1:37 AM, Alan Haigh wrote:

> organic agriculture produces far more calories in ratio to those put into it than conventional agriculture.  But conventional agriculture produces more food in a land use to food quantity ratio.

Some short-term studies did indeed appear to show that conventional agriculture produces more crop per acre than organic. However, a number of other studies are in, including some long-term studies, and it isn't so. Once the farmer and the land have adjusted to the organic system, organic yields can meet and in some cases exceed conventional yields. Some cites:

http://extension.osu.edu/~news/story.php?id=3547
[Ohio State University study, in which their organic tests produced 13% more corn than statewide average yield (most of which was cv) and topped the record-high state average by 4 bushels/acre.]

http://www.newfarm.org/columns/research_paul/2007/0207/fst.shtml
[this one is a New Farm article on the Rodale studies, running since 1981; this update is February 07. Organic yields started lower, then for a long time were equivalent, then from 95 to 06 were higher than conventional.]

http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/July05/organic.farm.vs.other.ssl.html
[this is Cornell news service story on David Pimental's (Cornell professor ecology and agriculture) review of the Rodale study]

http://orgprints.org/9783/
This was a study of basmati rice done at Indian Agricultural Research Insititue in New Delhi, India. Main focus is which organic amendments were useful, Relevant sentences to this purpose:
<x-tad-bigger>The rice grain yield (4.0 t ha-1) obtained under combined application of four organic amendments was at par with the yield recorded under recommended dose of chemical fertilizer application. An interesting observation recorded was that there was no serious attack of any insect pest or dis-ease in organically grown crop.</x-tad-bigger>


http://www.ns.umich.edu/htdocs/releases/story.php?id=5936
[from university of michigan, news release, "organic farming can feed the world";
study by UMich researches Ivette Perfecto and Catherine Badgley says yields almost equal in developed countries and production could double or triple in developing countries with organic methods]

http://crops.confex.com/crops/wc2006/techprogram/P11639.HTM
[a study in India on groundnuts; organic produced 22% higher kernel yield than cv, as well as other advantages. reported at the 18th World Congress of Soil Science, 2006, in Philadelphia PA][groundnut in this case is probably peanut]

Now I grant that none of those were done on apples in the Northeast. I don't grow apples, and so can't comment on them in great detail; but it's true that part of organic growing is to choose the crops, and the varieties of those crops, that are better suited to grow in the specific location of the particular farm. From all I've heard, apples are difficult to grow organically in this area, at least if you want them to look pretty; I think there are some people doing it, though. (However, I have grown organic cilantro and dill for years, and unlike Mark, I never had any insect problems in either of them. Mark, had the land been in non-organic use previously? is it possible that the local beneficial insect population was low due to previous pesticide use, or to such use in the immediately surrounding area?)

On Dec 14, 2007, at 1:15 PM, Mark & Helen Angermayer wrote:

> If I recall the LD50 of nicotine is fairly
> low, as it is for Rotenone (which is approved for organic use.)

Rotenone is no longer approved for organic use in the USA; hasn't been since the federal rule went into effect, and was controversial for some time before that. Nicotine not only is not currently acceptable, it hasn't been considered acceptable for organic use for many years, long before the USDA got into it; though if your source for organic information dates to the 1940's or so you might see it suggested in such old literature.


--Rivka
Finger Lakes NY; zone 5 mostly