snip

I think the variety of vegetable/fruit you grow has more to do with
the flavor of what you're growing being a major improvement over the
organic/non-organic issue. The majority of varieties being developed
now put different things far above flavor when selecting traits.
Early coloring, thicker skins to tolerate machine harvesting and
shipping are right up on the top of the list.

As to the taste test between organic VS non-organic VS home grown.

I eat mostly organic vegetables (seasonal when possible except avocados my
addiction)
Sometimes, I will admit you don't notice a difference in the foods. And some
can seen even 'better' as non-organic.
Below are examples that do compare noticeably for me.

Tomatoes
non-organic = Pretty dam tasteless. No flavour and a strange flour like
texture
organic = Still pretty tasteless. Normal tomato texture.
home grown = Fantastic.

flour like texture is usually a paste tomato trait, but unripened
gassed commercial tomatoes happen for sure. But grow a good variety
and let it vine ripen, gotta be an improvement ;-)

Peaches
non-organic = From what I recall seemed ok
organic = Alright, some had a slightly bitter aftertaste. Smaller in
size than non-organic

bitter aftertaste is a trait of some varieties, Elberta in particular
fully juicy tree ripened.

home grown = As big as the non-organic, very sweet, no bitter aftertaste

Potatoes

non-organic = Taste floury and weird
organic = Taste wonderful
home-grown = Taste as good as organic, easier to clean.

There are sooo many different kinds and flavors of potatoes with
textures which vary from dry and fluffy to moist and waxy.
Unfortunately, there are some which just don't measure up, although
I'm sure that growing conditions from garden to garden, season to
season affect the final product, but some are consistently nasty and
don't understand why they continue growing them.

Lettuce
No difference between any, but is expensive. Home grown lose leaf's very
easy to grow.

Oh my, there are so many wonderful varieties that cannot compare ..but
that's mostly a factor of variety.

Capsicum
non-organic = Big and watery. Not much taste but twice the size of organic
organic = Smaller in size, less watery. Slightly more flavour
home grown = Never been very successful.

In all for 'value' non-organic. But how much water has been used to justify
that SIZE is my question.
However, in saying the home grown tomato's are fantastic I did have some
exceptions.
These were the seeds that self sprouted from the organic vegetable scraps I
fed to my chickens.
They were perfect in shape, stayed on the kitchen bench 'ripening up for
days longer than other 'variety's and tasted a lot less 'fantastic' than say
the Tommy toes.
The moral of this is. Even organics grow tomatoes for 'shelf life' and
'appearance's over flavour. Definably grow your own.

A lot of the tomato varieties grown are hybrids. Plants which come up
from the seed of hybrids, are not likely going to be like the fruit
they came from, they usually revert to earlier types used to produce
the predictable hybrid. One might have been a cherry, the other a
large tomato. One never knows ;-) Can't predict what you'll get. You
may even get one similar to the hybrid type.

Tomatoes don't naturally hybridize as many plants, but it's possible,
and volunteers could be a hybrid, with poorer or better traits than
the parents. It's all a crap shoot ;-)

Growing a garden is a wonderful thing, be it 100% organic, or using a
little commercial fertilizer here and there along with the high fiber
organic matter, until it all gets going... as long as it doesn't turn
into a mimic to a commercial production.. but even then if they let
things ripen fully before picking.. they gotta taste better than
anything you can buy from a store that doesn't buy local produce!

BTW.. my comments aren't criticism, or argument.. just thought I'd
mention that varieties make a lot of difference! ;-)

Janice

"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.

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.

snip

I think the variety of vegetable/fruit you grow has more to do with
the flavor of what you're growing being a major improvement over the
organic/non-organic issue. The majority of varieties being developed
now put different things far above flavor when selecting traits.
Early coloring, thicker skins to tolerate machine harvesting and
shipping are right up on the top of the list.

As to the taste test between organic VS non-organic VS home grown.

I eat mostly organic vegetables (seasonal when possible except avocados my
addiction)
Sometimes, I will admit you don't notice a difference in the foods. And some
can seen even 'better' as non-organic.
Below are examples that do compare noticeably for me.

Tomatoes
non-organic = Pretty dam tasteless. No flavour and a strange flour like
texture
organic = Still pretty tasteless. Normal tomato texture.
home grown = Fantastic.

flour like texture is usually a paste tomato trait, but unripened
gassed commercial tomatoes happen for sure. But grow a good variety
and let it vine ripen, gotta be an improvement ;-)

Peaches
non-organic = From what I recall seemed ok
organic = Alright, some had a slightly bitter aftertaste. Smaller in
size than non-organic

bitter aftertaste is a trait of some varieties, Elberta in particular
fully juicy tree ripened.

home grown = As big as the non-organic, very sweet, no bitter aftertaste

Potatoes

non-organic = Taste floury and weird
organic = Taste wonderful
home-grown = Taste as good as organic, easier to clean.

There are sooo many different kinds and flavors of potatoes with
textures which vary from dry and fluffy to moist and waxy.
Unfortunately, there are some which just don't measure up, although
I'm sure that growing conditions from garden to garden, season to
season affect the final product, but some are consistently nasty and
don't understand why they continue growing them.

Lettuce
No difference between any, but is expensive. Home grown lose leaf's very
easy to grow.

Oh my, there are so many wonderful varieties that cannot compare ..but
that's mostly a factor of variety.

Capsicum
non-organic = Big and watery. Not much taste but twice the size of organic
organic = Smaller in size, less watery. Slightly more flavour
home grown = Never been very successful.

In all for 'value' non-organic. But how much water has been used to justify
that SIZE is my question.
However, in saying the home grown tomato's are fantastic I did have some
exceptions.
These were the seeds that self sprouted from the organic vegetable scraps I
fed to my chickens.
They were perfect in shape, stayed on the kitchen bench 'ripening up for
days longer than other 'variety's and tasted a lot less 'fantastic' than say
the Tommy toes.
The moral of this is. Even organics grow tomatoes for 'shelf life' and
'appearance's over flavour. Definably grow your own.

A lot of the tomato varieties grown are hybrids. Plants which come up
from the seed of hybrids, are not likely going to be like the fruit
they came from, they usually revert to earlier types used to produce
the predictable hybrid. One might have been a cherry, the other a
large tomato. One never knows ;-) Can't predict what you'll get. You
may even get one similar to the hybrid type.

Tomatoes don't naturally hybridize as many plants, but it's possible,
and volunteers could be a hybrid, with poorer or better traits than
the parents. It's all a crap shoot ;-)

Growing a garden is a wonderful thing, be it 100% organic, or using a
little commercial fertilizer here and there along with the high fiber
organic matter, until it all gets going... as long as it doesn't turn
into a mimic to a commercial production.. but even then if they let
things ripen fully before picking.. they gotta taste better than
anything you can buy from a store that doesn't buy local produce!

BTW.. my comments aren't criticism, or argument.. just thought I'd
mention that varieties make a lot of difference! ;-)

Janice

"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.

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.

On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 08:36:21 -0700, Janice
wrote:

I think the variety of vegetable/fruit you grow has more to do with
the flavor of what you're growing being a major improvement over the
organic/non-organic issue. The majority of varieties being developed
now put different things far above flavor when selecting traits.
Early coloring, thicker skins to tolerate machine harvesting and
shipping are right up on the top of the list.

Amen. Home gardeners, 'organic' or non-, have a vast selection of
varieties to choose from, while commercial production is limited as
above. The only fair Taste Test would have to be between the same
variety grown in the same place with the same weather, care, etc., and
the only difference being the use of 'chemical' fertilizers vs.
'organic' ones.