Ivan McDonagh wrote:

.....snip.....

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.

Why would these exist?
It almost impossible to do anyway, because everything (soil, slope,
aspect, ph, watering, handling, storage, cooking) affects taste and it
would be impossible to produce the amount of raw material that could be
considered to be identical to generate statistically valid results.


Anyway, I grew tomatoes this year "organically" and they tasted shite,
like cardboard. These were the Roma seedlings our neighbour gave us. In
the same plot, self seeded, grew one cherry tomato plant that tasted
beautiful.

Similar story with the potatoes. a neighbour gave us a butter plate size
potato they had they had sprouted, so it was split and planted along
with our usual range of potatoes. Again, it was bland compared to the
Keflers, Desire, etc that we also planted.

The problem of taste is largely a result of modern agriculture selecting
varieties that are quick growing, handle easily and store easily. Taste
is the last thing they care about.

For the home gardener, if you want taste, look at heritage seeds and
varieties.

Terry Collins wrote in
:

SNIP


For the home gardener, if you want taste, look at heritage seeds and
varieties.


Thanks Terry - that sums up nicely what I have been thinking but I was
curious about the "chemical taste factor". From the replies to date, that
seems to have been settled fairly well as well for me.

Ivan.

Terry Collins wrote in
:

SNIP


For the home gardener, if you want taste, look at heritage seeds and
varieties.


Thanks Terry - that sums up nicely what I have been thinking but I was
curious about the "chemical taste factor". From the replies to date, that
seems to have been settled fairly well as well for me.

Ivan.

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

....snip.....

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.

Why would these exist?
It almost impossible to do anyway, because everything (soil, slope,
aspect, ph, watering, handling, storage, cooking) affects taste and it
would be impossible to produce the amount of raw material that could be
considered to be identical to generate statistically valid results.


Anyway, I grew tomatoes this year "organically" and they tasted shite,
like cardboard. These were the Roma seedlings our neighbour gave us. In
the same plot, self seeded, grew one cherry tomato plant that tasted
beautiful.

Similar story with the potatoes. a neighbour gave us a butter plate size
potato they had they had sprouted, so it was split and planted along
with our usual range of potatoes. Again, it was bland compared to the
Keflers, Desire, etc that we also planted.

The problem of taste is largely a result of modern agriculture selecting
varieties that are quick growing, handle easily and store easily. Taste
is the last thing they care about.

For the home gardener, if you want taste, look at heritage seeds and
varieties.

I largely concur. Taste is improved by organic method only on average,
and taste depends on many more variables. I am pretty sure a chemical
brandywine will taste a lot better than an organic Roma. Likewise, we
love our homegrown lettuce because looseleaf lettuce (best tasting,
perfect for cut-and-come again, but very perishable) is just a
superior green than any heading lettuce (can travel, no taste).
Nothing to do with organic.

One of the advantages of organic cultivation is that the balanced soil
will reflect, on average, in a better tasting veggie through better
health and metabolism of the plant, and better micronutrient profile.
This said, I found lettuce or chard grown on straight manure to be
worse than lettuce or chard grown in leaf mold with just a bit of
manure. I found that wood ash improved the taste of many vegetables in
my acid soil. I am sure that lime would work almost as well.

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

....snip.....

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.

Why would these exist?
It almost impossible to do anyway, because everything (soil, slope,
aspect, ph, watering, handling, storage, cooking) affects taste and it
would be impossible to produce the amount of raw material that could be
considered to be identical to generate statistically valid results.


Anyway, I grew tomatoes this year "organically" and they tasted shite,
like cardboard. These were the Roma seedlings our neighbour gave us. In
the same plot, self seeded, grew one cherry tomato plant that tasted
beautiful.

Similar story with the potatoes. a neighbour gave us a butter plate size
potato they had they had sprouted, so it was split and planted along
with our usual range of potatoes. Again, it was bland compared to the
Keflers, Desire, etc that we also planted.

The problem of taste is largely a result of modern agriculture selecting
varieties that are quick growing, handle easily and store easily. Taste
is the last thing they care about.

For the home gardener, if you want taste, look at heritage seeds and
varieties.

I largely concur. Taste is improved by organic method only on average,
and taste depends on many more variables. I am pretty sure a chemical
brandywine will taste a lot better than an organic Roma. Likewise, we
love our homegrown lettuce because looseleaf lettuce (best tasting,
perfect for cut-and-come again, but very perishable) is just a
superior green than any heading lettuce (can travel, no taste).
Nothing to do with organic.

One of the advantages of organic cultivation is that the balanced soil
will reflect, on average, in a better tasting veggie through better
health and metabolism of the plant, and better micronutrient profile.
This said, I found lettuce or chard grown on straight manure to be
worse than lettuce or chard grown in leaf mold with just a bit of
manure. I found that wood ash improved the taste of many vegetables in
my acid soil. I am sure that lime would work almost as well.

On 16 Feb 2004 13:51:02 -0800, (simy1) wrote:

One of the advantages of organic cultivation is that the balanced soil
will reflect, on average, in a better tasting veggie through better
health and metabolism of the plant, and better micronutrient profile.

There are many reasons for growing 'organically' or non-. 'Organic' is
certainly cuter, and doubles the smugness factor. :-) It's also
economical, if you happen to keep animals which produce manure that
would otherwise be a disposal problem (see: hog waste pools). But
'organic' evidence seems to include a lot of anecdotal material.

"The balanced soil"? Say, what? "...better health and metabolism of
the plant"? "...better micronutrient profile"?

As I wrote in another post, I find the limits of 'organic', um,
limiting. I *sure* don't want to eat from a garden that's been covered
in Sevin dust, but when I got some early corn from plants encouraged
by ammonium nitrate, it tasted pretty good to me.

This said, I found lettuce or chard grown on straight manure to be
worse than lettuce or chard grown in leaf mold with just a bit of
manure. I found that wood ash improved the taste of many vegetables in
my acid soil. I am sure that lime would work almost as well.

(Lime *is* 'organic' within the meaning of the act. It's simply
pulverized stone/mineral, not the product of some evil manipulation of
petroleum.)

On 16 Feb 2004 13:51:02 -0800, (simy1) wrote:

One of the advantages of organic cultivation is that the balanced soil
will reflect, on average, in a better tasting veggie through better
health and metabolism of the plant, and better micronutrient profile.

There are many reasons for growing 'organically' or non-. 'Organic' is
certainly cuter, and doubles the smugness factor. :-) It's also
economical, if you happen to keep animals which produce manure that
would otherwise be a disposal problem (see: hog waste pools). But
'organic' evidence seems to include a lot of anecdotal material.

"The balanced soil"? Say, what? "...better health and metabolism of
the plant"? "...better micronutrient profile"?

As I wrote in another post, I find the limits of 'organic', um,
limiting. I *sure* don't want to eat from a garden that's been covered
in Sevin dust, but when I got some early corn from plants encouraged
by ammonium nitrate, it tasted pretty good to me.

This said, I found lettuce or chard grown on straight manure to be
worse than lettuce or chard grown in leaf mold with just a bit of
manure. I found that wood ash improved the taste of many vegetables in
my acid soil. I am sure that lime would work almost as well.

(Lime *is* 'organic' within the meaning of the act. It's simply
pulverized stone/mineral, not the product of some evil manipulation of
petroleum.)

"Frogleg" wrote in message
...
On 16 Feb 2004 13:51:02 -0800, (simy1) wrote:

One of the advantages of organic cultivation is that the balanced soil
will reflect, on average, in a better tasting veggie through better
health and metabolism of the plant, and better micronutrient profile.

There are many reasons for growing 'organically' or non-. 'Organic' is
certainly cuter, and doubles the smugness factor. :-) It's also
economical, if you happen to keep animals which produce manure that
would otherwise be a disposal problem (see: hog waste pools). But
'organic' evidence seems to include a lot of anecdotal material.


More anecdotal material follows.--


I was talking to an old boy a while ago on some allotments some way from
ours. It turns out this geezer had had an allotment during the war, and he
pointed out the house he used to live in then, and told me that they used to
keep a pig in the garden as many people were encouraged to do during the
war, and he had the allotment adjacent to his garden. Then he said " We used
to throw the pig manure over the garden wall onto the allotment and dig it
in later"


Steve

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 13:59:52 -0000, "shazzbat"
wrote:

"Frogleg" wrote

There are many reasons for growing 'organically' or non-. 'Organic' is
certainly cuter, and doubles the smugness factor. :-) It's also
economical, if you happen to keep animals which produce manure that
would otherwise be a disposal problem (see: hog waste pools). But
'organic' evidence seems to include a lot of anecdotal material.

More anecdotal material follows.--

I was talking to an old boy a while ago on some allotments some way from
ours. It turns out this geezer had had an allotment during the war, and he
pointed out the house he used to live in then, and told me that they used to
keep a pig in the garden as many people were encouraged to do during the
war, and he had the allotment adjacent to his garden. Then he said " We used
to throw the pig manure over the garden wall onto the allotment and dig it
in later"

Exactly! Any gardener with an ounce of sense makes use of materials
available. I have no experience with pig poo, but an un- (under-)
utilized oversupply that is concentrated in 'hog waste ponds' is a big
problem for US meat producers. Not to mention their neighbors.

Many 'organic' procedures seem so simple. Don't clog landfills with
leaves and lawn trimmings -- compost them if there's space. Pig poo
appears to be less desirable than that of strictly vegetarian animals,
but it's probably a good thing to put on the garden (in less than
million-gallon quantities!). If I could protect them in cold weather,
I'd love to have a 'chicken tractor.'

BUT I'm not a criminal if, in the absence of domestic animals and
their aftereffects, I choose to buy a plastic bag of commercial
fertilizer for my tomatoes and squash.

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 13:59:52 -0000, "shazzbat"
wrote:

"Frogleg" wrote

There are many reasons for growing 'organically' or non-. 'Organic' is
certainly cuter, and doubles the smugness factor. :-) It's also
economical, if you happen to keep animals which produce manure that
would otherwise be a disposal problem (see: hog waste pools). But
'organic' evidence seems to include a lot of anecdotal material.

More anecdotal material follows.--

I was talking to an old boy a while ago on some allotments some way from
ours. It turns out this geezer had had an allotment during the war, and he
pointed out the house he used to live in then, and told me that they used to
keep a pig in the garden as many people were encouraged to do during the
war, and he had the allotment adjacent to his garden. Then he said " We used
to throw the pig manure over the garden wall onto the allotment and dig it
in later"

Exactly! Any gardener with an ounce of sense makes use of materials
available. I have no experience with pig poo, but an un- (under-)
utilized oversupply that is concentrated in 'hog waste ponds' is a big
problem for US meat producers. Not to mention their neighbors.

Many 'organic' procedures seem so simple. Don't clog landfills with
leaves and lawn trimmings -- compost them if there's space. Pig poo
appears to be less desirable than that of strictly vegetarian animals,
but it's probably a good thing to put on the garden (in less than
million-gallon quantities!). If I could protect them in cold weather,
I'd love to have a 'chicken tractor.'

BUT I'm not a criminal if, in the absence of domestic animals and
their aftereffects, I choose to buy a plastic bag of commercial
fertilizer for my tomatoes and squash.

Frogleg wrote in message . ..
On 16 Feb 2004 13:51:02 -0800, (simy1) wrote:

certainly cuter, and doubles the smugness factor. :-) It's also
economical, if you happen to keep animals which produce manure that
would otherwise be a disposal problem (see: hog waste pools). But
'organic' evidence seems to include a lot of anecdotal material.

no doubt.


"The balanced soil"? Say, what? "...better health and metabolism of
the plant"? "...better micronutrient profile"?


almost certainly so. when you buy a bag of potassium chloride all you
get is K. When you get manure you get a much more distributed profile.
Check the soil under your chemically grown corn. It has less or no
earthworms. Without earthworms, drainage is worse, root penetration is
worse, if you have a sandy soil, water retention is worse. Further, if
you analyze it after repeated usage, its micronutrient profile is
depleted. Less slugs is the only advantage I am willing to admit.

In article ,
(simy1) wrote:

Frogleg wrote in message
. ..
On 16 Feb 2004 13:51:02 -0800, (simy1) wrote:

certainly cuter, and doubles the smugness factor. :-) It's also
economical, if you happen to keep animals which produce manure that
would otherwise be a disposal problem (see: hog waste pools). But
'organic' evidence seems to include a lot of anecdotal material.

no doubt.


"The balanced soil"? Say, what? "...better health and metabolism of
the plant"? "...better micronutrient profile"?


almost certainly so. when you buy a bag of potassium chloride all you
get is K. When you get manure you get a much more distributed profile.
Check the soil under your chemically grown corn. It has less or no
earthworms. Without earthworms, drainage is worse, root penetration is
worse, if you have a sandy soil, water retention is worse. Further, if
you analyze it after repeated usage, its micronutrient profile is
depleted. Less slugs is the only advantage I am willing to admit.

Got slugs? You need geese... ;-)

--
Sprout the Mung Bean to reply...

,,Cat's Haven Hobby Farm,,Katra at centurytel dot net,,
http://cgi6.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dl...user id=katra

(simy1) wrote in
om:

Frogleg wrote in message
. ..
On 16 Feb 2004 13:51:02 -0800, (simy1) wrote:

"The balanced soil"? Say, what? "...better health and metabolism of
the plant"? "...better micronutrient profile"?


almost certainly so. when you buy a bag of potassium chloride all you
get is K. When you get manure you get a much more distributed profile.
Check the soil under your chemically grown corn. It has less or no
earthworms. Without earthworms, drainage is worse, root penetration is
worse, if you have a sandy soil, water retention is worse. Further, if
you analyze it after repeated usage, its micronutrient profile is
depleted. Less slugs is the only advantage I am willing to admit.


But if K is all that the soil is lacking in then surely K is all that is
needed to be supplied ?


Regarding earthworms, I have my own anecdotal evidence that "less or no
earthworms" is not the case in an ornamental garden that has only ever
had commercial mulch (from plastic bags!) and factory fertiliser.
Referring back to the book that started me on this line of thought,
there is a reference to a study that indicates that when factory
fertilisers are used properly (i.e. in conjunction with lots of organic
matter and a close eye on the pH) there is no loss of earthworms. I would
certainly be interested in knowing of any later studies that show
differently.

Thanks for the comments.

Ivan.

Frogleg wrote in
:


If I could protect them in cold weather,
I'd love to have a 'chicken tractor.'

I wish I'd thought of this a bit earlier since I intend to keep chooks at
some stage - perhaps sooner rather than later!

I just googled for chicken tractor and found not very much that's very
useful ... do you have any good links regarding building tractors and
capacity ? - I'm hoping to keep 20 birds of laying/slaughtering size plus
the same again of chicks.

Actually, I know it's getting off-topic now but any good sites on raising
chickens for home consumption would be good.

Thanks

Ivan.

On 24 Feb 2004 23:37:08 +1100, Ivan McDonagh
wrote:

Frogleg wrote in
:


If I could protect them in cold weather,
I'd love to have a 'chicken tractor.'

I wish I'd thought of this a bit earlier since I intend to keep chooks at
some stage - perhaps sooner rather than later!

I just googled for chicken tractor and found not very much that's very
useful ... do you have any good links regarding building tractors and
capacity ? - I'm hoping to keep 20 birds of laying/slaughtering size plus
the same again of chicks.

Actually, I know it's getting off-topic now but any good sites on raising
chickens for home consumption would be good.

Thanks

Ivan.

I don't know about chick tractors other than they vary from ones
people just put out for the day, roof and wire, and just move them
across green areas for the birds to eat, to buildings with wheels and
can be moved with runs and building.

I just thought I'd mention that 20 chickens can produce enough heat to
keep each other warm in winter if housed in a building that's not too
large and which is well insulated - for protection not only from the
cold, but from the summer heat. I didn't lose any from winter cold,
but summer heat killed all the buff orpingtons as they are heavily
feathered. Just make sure you cover that insulation 100% .. chickens
think it's cotton candy!

Janice