"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
om...
"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...
"sw" wrote in message
...
martin wrote:

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 20:20:10 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:

Gardeners should realise that they frequently get their knickers in
a
twist
through the misuse of terms which have prior definitions differing
from
those they *think* are correct. It has, for instance, occurred in
this
very
thread. "Organic" itself is a case in point. There is a great
tendency to
call "beneficient" chemicals "organic" and others "inorganic".

It helps to sell organic food at vast prices to the naive, who think
that they are getting something clean and natural, rather than just
more stuff sprayed with approved "organic" chemicals.

Possibly. But some of us are capable of distinguishing between the
chemicals used on conventional crops and those used on Organic crops.

Must I then take it that organic food == food grown with nice tasting
chemicals and ordinary food == food grown with nasty tasting chemicals?

I wish I knew why these discussions always go round in the same
circles. It's perfectly straightforward: you can feed plants on
relatively pure chemical nutrients prepared in a factory, and they'll
grow. You can also feed plants on impure chemicals such as bone-meal,
dried blood, rotted farmyard muck, etc, and they'll also grow.

The plants can, of course, neither absorb nor digest the materials mentioned
in your last sentence. They have to be broken up by agents in the soil into
simple inorganic substances before the plant can make use of them. What,
then, is wrong with skipping a stage and putting the required chemicals
directly into the soil?

What we call "organic", and the French call "biological" systems are
just that: systems. I'm not telling anybody anything they don't know
already when I say these techniques involve replicating as closely as
possible, and where necessary magnifying, the very complex processes
of nutrition under which plant life has evolved. These include, among
many other features, encouraging the organisms, micro- and not so
micro-, which live in and on naturally-formed soils in order to
provide a wide range of nutrients and a balanced ecology in which
organisms harmful to plants don't usually gain the upper hand. The
effect of plant disease is reduced by, among other things, paying
attention to the selection of resistant varieties appropriate to the
area in which they are grown; biological control of pests and the
thoughtful use of relatively simple chemical compounds for pest and
disease control aim at the reduction of environmental pollution.

The advantages of biologically-based systems include stable and
healthy soils with a long-term future, a reduction in our reliance on
the dwindling and increasingly expensive resource of petroleum, and
better animal welfare including that of wildlife; sometimes there is
also an advantage in table quality, and perhaps in nutritional value.

I don't quite see why people always comb through policy statements
like the above to see if they can find something to disagree with
and if they can't, will introduce bizarre distractions such as the
inadvisability of drinking ****, or the sad effects the neighbour's
oak-leaves may have had on their gardens, or -- the best yet --
"water's a chemical, you know". It's as though some people find
organic cultivation some sort of threat to be countered. Maybe it
depends who you work for.

I do not find it a threat of any kind. I just find it amusing to see how
organic afficionados react when anyone dares to question their dogma.

My policy is much simpler than yours, and I intend sticking to it:
I will use any substance in my gardening efforts, if I have evidence that
the good which might result from its use is likely to greatly exceed the
possible harm which it might do. The moment I see evidence that my opinion
of that substance is wrong, I will cease using it immediately.

Franz