*** note the cross post ***


Hi all

I have just finished reading an online book "Chemicals, Humus, and The
Soil" written by Donald P. Hopkins. This book is available through the
agriculture library at http://www.soilandhealth.org.

It seems to me that Mr Hopkins makes a very strong case in favour of
using the fertilisers that are not permissible under the "rules" of
organic gardening. Although Mr Hopkins has discussed this matter in the
context of commercial farming it seems to me that as home growers we are
also looking for best yield for least cost (direct and labour) and that
the arguments he presents are mostly just as valid for home growers as
for commercial.

Mr Hopkins emphasises to a very great extent the need for large amounts
of organic matter in the soil but is also convincing in his argument
that the amounts of humus that are required to provide sufficient
nutrients for the high density planting that both home and commercial
growers favour is difficult for the home grower and expensive to the
point of impossibility in the case of the commercial grower to obtain.

I wonder if anyone else has read this book and can comment on the
validity of the arguments put forward by Mr Hopkins.

Also, are there any peer-reviewed studies regarding the "taste" of
organic vs. non-organic produce (presumably these would be double blind
trials) and the bio-availability of nutrients in organic vs. non-organic
produce. Obviously, I would prefer at least abstracts to be available via
the internet.

Ivan.

Ivan McDonagh wrote:

*** note the cross post ***

Hi all

I have just finished reading an online book "Chemicals, Humus, and The
Soil" written by Donald P. Hopkins. This book is available through the
agriculture library at http://www.soilandhealth.org.

thanks for the url. Looks very helpful.

....snip.....

Although Mr Hopkins has discussed this matter in the
context of commercial farming it seems to me that as home growers we are
also looking for best yield for least cost (direct and labour) and that
the arguments he presents are mostly just as valid for home growers as
for commercial.

Umm , I think different people garden for different reasons. Having a
vegetable garden is an optional activity for most people these days and
those that have them do so for different reasons.

Some of the ideas are;
1) it is a relaxing activity,
2) greater variety of foods,
3) greater variety of types,
4) reduced agricultural chemical intake,
5) self reliance,
6) skill development,
7) other.

G'day,
I'm glad you jumped in Terry, a bloke could earn a PH.D
answering this one in detail!

China
Wingham
NSW

p.s. Ivan, yours is a fair post, but while you are at your library, also
check out a book by the name of 'The One Straw Revolution', also
interesting reading.

G'day,
I'm glad you jumped in Terry, a bloke could earn a PH.D
answering this one in detail!

China
Wingham
NSW

p.s. Ivan, yours is a fair post, but while you are at your library, also
check out a book by the name of 'The One Straw Revolution', also
interesting reading.

"Ivan McDonagh" wrote in message

....snip...
Mr Hopkins emphasises to a very great extent the need for large amounts
of organic matter in the soil but is also convincing in his argument
that the amounts of humus that are required to provide sufficient
nutrients for the high density planting that both home and commercial
growers favour is difficult for the home grower and expensive to the
point of impossibility in the case of the commercial grower to obtain.

I wonder if anyone else has read this book and can comment on the
validity of the arguments put forward by Mr Hopkins.



I haven't read the book but I adopt the philosophy of "ideology grows no
potatoes"

By all means take the long view and care for the soil, air and water, and
animals and ourselves. Let's do this using the best information at hand.
Accept that the resources of the earth are limited and need to be managed
carefully.

There is very good evidence that maintaining organic matter in the soil is
important, that broadacre monoculture using synthetics has drawbacks and for
many other ideas espoused by organic grower.

Consider the converse too: I recently listened to a great heap of claptrap
about why "natural" pyrethrins should be used to kill insects instead of
synthetic. These people were discussing the issue most seriously.

If you are going to kill insects then be aware of the consequences of
killing them and make a good decision whether it is worth it or not. Don't
waste time on the ideological question of whether the poison came out of a
test tube; it's still poison. It is more useful to debate how many angels
can dance on the head of a pin.

It would be similarly stupid to think that you can get sustainable good
results with only "chemical" fertilisers and just as stupid to never use
them under any conditions.


David

Ivan McDonagh wrote in message . 67.67...
*** note the cross post ***


Hi all

I have just finished reading an online book "Chemicals, Humus, and The
Soil" written by Donald P. Hopkins. This book is available through the
agriculture library at http://www.soilandhealth.org.

It seems to me that Mr Hopkins makes a very strong case in favour of
using the fertilisers that are not permissible under the "rules" of
organic gardening. Although Mr Hopkins has discussed this matter in the
context of commercial farming it seems to me that as home growers we are
also looking for best yield for least cost (direct and labour) and that
the arguments he presents are mostly just as valid for home growers as
for commercial.

Mr Hopkins emphasises to a very great extent the need for large amounts
of organic matter in the soil but is also convincing in his argument
that the amounts of humus that are required to provide sufficient
nutrients for the high density planting that both home and commercial
growers favour is difficult for the home grower and expensive to the
point of impossibility in the case of the commercial grower to obtain.


The correct answer is "It depends". There are two aspects of
non-organic gardening, pesticides and fertilizing. Here in Michigan
many pests, present further south, are simply absent due to cold
winters, and one can really go organic on that count. The only
recurrent problem I have is with vine borers. So if I were willing to
go without zucchini, and accept some ragged holes in my collards and
kales, I could indeed be perfectly organic (I cover the zucchini and
accept the holes, if you are keeping score).

As far as organic matter it is true that, past 10 or 20%, there is a
diminished advantage in adding more. When you do add more, you gain
moderate amounts of fertilizer and the increased levels of humus
increase the plant's overall health and therefore resistance to
several stresses, including drought and pests. It is also possible
that you gain in micronutrients content by using compost.

I have to wonder how sweeping a statement one could make
viability. Suppose I needed extra N and P in my yard (or in my
commercial farm), I could do that with a a single box each of bone
meal and bloodmeal, which are viable organic amendments for a farm as
well. No need to drag a ton of leaves across the yard or bring twenty
dumptrucks into the farm. I would also like to know if any kind of
rock dust is organic or not, since it is mined after all.

Besides the more restricted choice of veggies (and more limited
productivity) for a farmer at a given location and time, there is the
more strict rotation that organic agriculture forces you into, which,
as a farmer, will diminish your ability to follow the market. There is
the obvious improvement in water quality and the lesser evolution of
major pests. If your goal is to have a garden with carefree, healthy
veggies, that grow well in your locale, and without insisting on
growing varieties which need chemicals, organic is certainly a viable
way of gardening.

When you are organic, in a sense, you are taking care of several
problems (soil conditioning, fertilizing, reducing weeding and
watering, improving plant health and vegetable nutrient content) with
the single act of applying two inches of compost in the spring. It is
very efficient for the home gardener.

"Terry Collins" wrote in message
...
Ivan McDonagh wrote:

*** note the cross post ***

Hi all

I have just finished reading an online book "Chemicals, Humus, and
The
Soil" written by Donald P. Hopkins. This book is available through
the
agriculture library at http://www.soilandhealth.org.

thanks for the url. Looks very helpful.

...snip.....

Although Mr Hopkins has discussed this matter in the
context of commercial farming it seems to me that as home growers we
are
also looking for best yield for least cost (direct and labour) and
that
the arguments he presents are mostly just as valid for home growers
as
for commercial.

Umm , I think different people garden for different reasons. Having a
vegetable garden is an optional activity for most people these days
and
those that have them do so for different reasons.

Some of the ideas are;
1) it is a relaxing activity,
2) greater variety of foods,
3) greater variety of types,
4) reduced agricultural chemical intake,
5) self reliance,
6) skill development,
7) other.


Don't forget the big reason:

The food tastes so much better!


Ray

"Terry Collins" wrote in message
...
Ivan McDonagh wrote:

*** note the cross post ***

Hi all

I have just finished reading an online book "Chemicals, Humus, and
The
Soil" written by Donald P. Hopkins. This book is available through
the
agriculture library at http://www.soilandhealth.org.

thanks for the url. Looks very helpful.

...snip.....

Although Mr Hopkins has discussed this matter in the
context of commercial farming it seems to me that as home growers we
are
also looking for best yield for least cost (direct and labour) and
that
the arguments he presents are mostly just as valid for home growers
as
for commercial.

Umm , I think different people garden for different reasons. Having a
vegetable garden is an optional activity for most people these days
and
those that have them do so for different reasons.

Some of the ideas are;
1) it is a relaxing activity,
2) greater variety of foods,
3) greater variety of types,
4) reduced agricultural chemical intake,
5) self reliance,
6) skill development,
7) other.


Don't forget the big reason:

The food tastes so much better!


Ray

"Ray Drouillard" wrote in
:


"Terry Collins" wrote in message
...
Ivan McDonagh wrote:

SNIP


Don't forget the big reason:

The food tastes so much better!


Ray


It's this sort of anectodal evidence, Ray, that I'm curious about - one
of my friends had a load of vegies from my totally organic garden last
year and maintained how much better they were than the chemically grown
ones. Yet I genuinely couldn't say definitely one way or the other ...
sure, they were nicer but was that just a matter of being 5 minutes old
versus being at least 5 days old?

Thanks for the comment though

Ivan.

"Ray Drouillard" wrote in
:


"Terry Collins" wrote in message
...
Ivan McDonagh wrote:

SNIP


Don't forget the big reason:

The food tastes so much better!


Ray


It's this sort of anectodal evidence, Ray, that I'm curious about - one
of my friends had a load of vegies from my totally organic garden last
year and maintained how much better they were than the chemically grown
ones. Yet I genuinely couldn't say definitely one way or the other ...
sure, they were nicer but was that just a matter of being 5 minutes old
versus being at least 5 days old?

Thanks for the comment though

Ivan.

I have to agree. For me, that IS the big one.

Steve


Ray Drouillard wrote:


Don't forget the big reason:

The food tastes so much better!


Ray

Ivan McDonagh wrote:

.....snip.......

Mr Hopkins emphasises to a very great extent the need for large amounts
of organic matter in the soil but is also convincing in his argument
that the amounts of humus that are required to provide sufficient
nutrients for the high density planting that both home and commercial
growers favour is difficult for the home grower and expensive to the
point of impossibility in the case of the commercial grower to obtain.

From what I remember from high school agriculture some 30 years ago, if
you apply chemical fertilisers direct to a (basic) soil, then your
plants only have a short time (the time it takes to leach through) in
which to take up the nutrients, etc that the chemical provided.

Adding organic matter to the soil provides an enormous amount (relative)
of places/sites for the chemicals to be bound/held/delayed so there is a
greater store of chemical for the plants to later take up and the
chemical is less easily leached out of the soil.

So Mr Hopkins ideas have been adapted in modern agriculture.


"Organic" to me is a system of certification and thus something is
"organic" if it is certified to be organic. End of story.

Some farmers are making a living being organic famrers. End of story
about cost, etc. So that answers your question in the subject.


Okay, we are forced to live in a capitalist world and the capitalist
world just exploits resources to enable some people to maximise the
amount of money they make at the expense of other people and the
environment.

So, not all farmers can afford to be successful organic farmers. because
as you say, the cost of that organic matter can be too high. If you look
at the nutrient cycle as per human activities, we have a few 1000 (?)
farmers growing food, that is 99% shipped to capital cities for sale
(99%) and consumption (95%)(Yes, some of it goes back - weird). So
basically our cities are drowning in shit each year. To prevent this
happening, we pump it out to sea. What %? and What % is now sold as
landscape fill, etc?

So, if a farmer wants to do what is right by the environment, they then
have to pay for cartage of that organic matter back to his farm, which
for most means that the costs of farming inputs are too high and they
would not have a commerically viable farm. Note, that book was written
in 1948 and transport infrastructure has greatly changed since then.

Instead, farmers tend to produce organic matter on the farm by growing
other crops, e.g, sub-clover with crops to directly provide nitrogen,
pastures that stock eat and defecate, etc.


As a home gardener,

1) I compost all food scraps and if I am feeling energetic, shred and
compost the newspaper, etc. Worry about energy cost of shredding and
have only just workerd out that it all had a ph of 5, which is why is
made negligible difference.

2) obtain bulk animal manures, (e.g horse and chicken), occassionally as
chance and carrying capacity allows. Actually, I know where I can get
trailer loads of stable stuff for free (Cobboty, NSW), but I have to let
it stand for weeks as the horses are regularly wormed and it has a very
large component of sawdust, so I tend not to.

3) buy commercial compost off the chicken farmers and mushroom farmers
and use that. Costs, but easily to handle, store (bagged) and use. and
it worked on the tomatoe this summer as we had a nice crop. however, the
beans were awful.

"Ivan McDonagh" wrote in message
7.67...
"Ray Drouillard" wrote in
:


"Terry Collins" wrote in message
...
Ivan McDonagh wrote:

SNIP


Don't forget the big reason:

The food tastes so much better!


Ray


It's this sort of anectodal evidence, Ray, that I'm curious about - one
of my friends had a load of vegies from my totally organic garden last
year and maintained how much better they were than the chemically grown
ones. Yet I genuinely couldn't say definitely one way or the other ...
SNIP

As I understand it, someone did some blind tests to prove or disprove the
claim that home-grown veggies taste better, and the results basically were
that even the home growers couldn't tell their own produce from supermarket
bought produce. I don't know whether this was cooked, raw or a mixture of
both.

But I don't care, there's nothing to beat the smug feeling of knowing that
you grew what you're eating.

And I could smug for England.

Steve

"Ivan McDonagh" wrote in message
7.67...
"Ray Drouillard" wrote in
:


"Terry Collins" wrote in message
...
Ivan McDonagh wrote:

SNIP


Don't forget the big reason:

The food tastes so much better!


Ray


It's this sort of anectodal evidence, Ray, that I'm curious about -
one
of my friends had a load of vegies from my totally organic garden last
year and maintained how much better they were than the chemically
grown
ones. Yet I genuinely couldn't say definitely one way or the other ...
sure, they were nicer but was that just a matter of being 5 minutes
old
versus being at least 5 days old?

Thanks for the comment though

Ivan.

I wasn't commenting about organic gardening. I was replying to this
comment:

Umm , I think different people garden for different reasons.

Terry mentioned a lot of good reasons to garden, but the superior
quality of home-grown food is one of the biggest reasons for growing
one's own food.


Ray

"shazzbat" wrote in message
...

"Ivan McDonagh" wrote in message
7.67...
"Ray Drouillard" wrote in
:


"Terry Collins" wrote in message
...
Ivan McDonagh wrote:

SNIP


Don't forget the big reason:

The food tastes so much better!


Ray


It's this sort of anectodal evidence, Ray, that I'm curious about -
one
of my friends had a load of vegies from my totally organic garden
last
year and maintained how much better they were than the chemically
grown
ones. Yet I genuinely couldn't say definitely one way or the other
....
SNIP

As I understand it, someone did some blind tests to prove or disprove
the
claim that home-grown veggies taste better, and the results basically
were
that even the home growers couldn't tell their own produce from
supermarket
bought produce. I don't know whether this was cooked, raw or a mixture
of
both.

But I don't care, there's nothing to beat the smug feeling of knowing
that
you grew what you're eating.

I wonder who did the study. I wonder what veggies were used. Radishes
and lettuce might be difficult, but I have yet to see a store-boughten
peach that comes even close to one that was picked ripe from the tree
(as opposed to being picked green and ripened after being severed from
its source of sugar). The same sort of goes for tomatoes. It isn't as
much an issue of vine-ripening, but there is a taste that comes with
home grown tomatoes that is missing in the store-boughten fare. Perhaps
buying some of the $3.00/pound premium tomatoes would fix that, but I
wouldn't bet on it.


Ray Drouillard