Charles wrote:

On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 00:50:52 -0500, sherwindu
wrote:



Persephone wrote:

On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 01:36:34 -0500, sherwindu
wrote:

As far as fruits are concerned, almost no pesticide penetrates the outer skin,
so peeling fruits eliminates much of this problem.

It has been my understanding -- corrections welcome if fact-based --
that apples, e.g. among the most-sprayed fruits, have toxic seeds
as well as skins.

Your understanding, but where is your documentation?

Anyways, even if true (which I doubt), who eats the apple seeds?

Sherwin D.



Apple, along with a large number of other plants of Rosaceae, is
listed in the "Poisonous Plants of California." The seeds are said to
be toxic, nothing to do with spraying, just natural, organic amygdalin
and prunasin. A person would have to et a lot of seeds to be
affected.

A person would have to be pretty dumb to even eat one seed. The last time I
heard of anyone having a problem eating apples was Snow White.

The leaves of rhubarb are also poisonous, but we can still eat the stalks, etc.,
etc.

Listing apples as a poisonous fruit is pretty stupid.

Sherwin D.

Ann wrote:

sherwindu expounded:

As I stated in earlier posts, organic labels are not a guarantee that no
pesticides
were used on that product.

Says a true chemical lover.

Never said I love chemicals. Just that they are necessary until the organic
people can come up with something equivalent in insect and fungus protection.

Sorry, I'll take my chances with someone
who grows organic - there are many of them, and I believe them, long
before I'll believe you in saying how benign and wonderful the sprays
are used in conventional fruit growing.

Spoken like a true believer.



However, they do give the grower and distributor
a good excuse to jack up the price.

Oh, that's good. Malign the organic grower.

Well, somebody's making good money on people's fears. Maybe
you have an explanation why organic labled food costs more?

The conventional growers
are getting desperate, aren't they?
--
Ann, gardening in Zone 6a
South of Boston, Massachusetts
e-mail address is not checked
******************************

Billy Rose wrote:

So your saying that you don't disagree on the qualitative substance of

the report, but its' lack of quantification?

I neither agree or disagree with the report since I don't have any detailed
information on how the study was run, or the people who did it. I just
pointed out that important information was missing.

How much pesticide, an it's
residues, in your food is acceptable to you?

Unless you grow your own food, realistically you are going to be exposed
to some degree of contamination. Unless you can quantify this, there is
no logical way to choose what is safe, or not safe to eat.

How much Escherichia coli
( excrement) in your food is acceptable to you? Combine these with
the pharmacopoeia and residues now found in drinking water and what
quantity is acceptable to you?

I think our government agencies have specified all that. I have not made a
detailed study of the subject, but I try and use common sense in what I will
ingest, or not.

Given that we don't know the
ramifications of interactions between the myriad of industrial chemicals
released into the environment, how much more do you feel we can safely
accept? Give that we don't know any of the above, what makes you
confident that we can ingest more? LD 50 test?

A "free market" is based on informed consent. Where is the information?
Where is the consent?

Not only is the Emperor naked but he looks a lot like Moloch. He who
accepts human sacrifice.

Oh boy, now we are mixing in religion. I'm out of here.

Sherwin D.



- Billy
Coloribus gustibus non disputatum (mostly)



Billy Rose wrote:

I can't remember if I post this here recently so here goes.

http://www.foodnews.org/

Pesticide load on commercial produce.

The Full List: 43 Fruits & Veggies

RANK FRUIT OR VEGGIE SCORE

1 (worst) Peaches 100 (highest
pesticide load)

2 Apples 89

3 Sweet Bell Peppers 86

4 Celery 85

5 Nectarines 84

6 Strawberries 82

7 Cherries 75

8 Pears 65

9 Grapes - Imported 65

10 Spinach 60

11 Lettuce 59

12 Potatoes 58

13 Carrots 57

14 Green Beans 53

15 Hot Peppers 53

16 Cucumbers 52

17 Raspberries 47

18 Plums 45

19 Grapes - Domestic 43

20 Oranges 42

21 Grapefruit 40

22 Tangerine 38

23 Mushrooms 37

24 Cantaloupe 34

25 Honeydew Melon 31

26 Tomatoes 30

27 Sweet Potatoes 30

28 Watermelon 28

29 Winter Squash 27

30 Cauliflower 27

31 Blueberries 24

32 Papaya 21

33 Broccoli 18

34 Cabbage 17

35 Bananas 16

36 Kiwi 14

37 Sweet peas - frozen 11

38 Asparagus 11

39 Mango 9

40 Pineapples 7

41 Sweet Corn - frozen 2

42 Avocado 1

43 (best) Onions 1 (lowest
pesticide
load)

Note: We ranked a total of 43 different fruits and vegetables but
grapes
are listed twice because we looked at both domestic and imported
samples.

- Billy
Coloribus gustibus non disputatum (mostly)

sherwindu expounded:


Well, somebody's making good money on people's fears. Maybe
you have an explanation why organic labled food costs more?

Because it costs more to produce. Which is why you chemical heads use
the chemicals, to avoid the work it takes to grow high-quality,
organic, not poisonous in the least food. Sorry, sherwindu, but
people are becoming more educated about how their food is grown. It's
up to you food producers to figure out how to do it without poisoning
us. The organic growers have figured it out, and I have no problem
paying them for their labors.
--
Ann, gardening in Zone 6a
South of Boston, Massachusetts
e-mail address is not checked
******************************

In article ,
sherwindu wrote:

1) Given that we don't know the
2) ramifications of interactions between the myriad of industrial chemicals
3) released into the environment, how much more do you feel we can safely
4) accept? Give that we don't know any of the above, what makes you
5) confident that we can (safely) ingest more? LD 50 tests?

6) A "free market" is based on informed consent. Where is the information?
7) Where is the consent?

Not only is the Emperor naked but he looks a lot like Moloch. He who
accepts human sacrifice.

Oh boy, now we are mixing in religion. I'm out of here.

Sherwin D.

Sherwin, Sherwin, Sherwin,
don't be so timid. OK, OK, forget the metaphysical observation and just
take a run at the first seven lines.

- Billy
Coloribus gustibus non disputatum (mostly)

First of all, using language like 'chemical head' shows your stupidity and
adolescence,
although I think your age is well beyond that. Your whole premise is that
organic methods
can take over from chemical ones and do an adequate job. If they tried that
today,
millions of people would starve around the world. I don't think horse manure
and
other organic fertilizers cost any more than chemical ones. Your logic is
flawed and
the organic farmers just love the way you shop. The organic farmers are just
now
making some headway in their efforts, but they have a ways to go. I know that
with
apples, they are restricted to mostly average tasting varieties. They still
have not come
up with an apple that resists fungus and disease and yet tastes great. As for
organic insect
protection of apples, it's marginal, at best.

Sherwin

Ann wrote:

sherwindu expounded:


Well, somebody's making good money on people's fears. Maybe
you have an explanation why organic labled food costs more?

Because it costs more to produce. Which is why you chemical heads use
the chemicals, to avoid the work it takes to grow high-quality,
organic, not poisonous in the least food. Sorry, sherwindu, but
people are becoming more educated about how their food is grown. It's
up to you food producers to figure out how to do it without poisoning
us. The organic growers have figured it out, and I have no problem
paying them for their labors.
--
Ann, gardening in Zone 6a
South of Boston, Massachusetts
e-mail address is not checked
******************************

In article ,
sherwindu wrote:

Sherwin

Dumber than dirt. I'll try to expand on that tomorrow. Actually, that
was an insult to dirt. Dirt's OK. I like dirt. But find out what Shirwin
ate because he is really dumb.

- Billy
Coloribus gustibus non disputatum (mostly)

Billy Rose expounded:

In article ,
sherwindu wrote:

Sherwin

Dumber than dirt. I'll try to expand on that tomorrow. Actually, that
was an insult to dirt. Dirt's OK. I like dirt. But find out what Shirwin
ate because he is really dumb.

- Billy
Coloribus gustibus non disputatum (mostly)

He's never going to give up the chemicals, and he rants on and on at
anyone who suggests things can be grown without them. Makes me think
he's a sill for Monsanto. Maybe he's the reincarnation of John Riley
from Oz gasp!
--
Ann, gardening in Zone 6a
South of Boston, Massachusetts
e-mail address is not checked
******************************

sherwindu expounded:

First of all, using language like 'chemical head' shows your stupidity and
adolescence,
although I think your age is well beyond that.

Sticks and stones and all that. Unless the shoe fits....
Your whole premise is that organic methods
can take over from chemical ones and do an adequate job.

That's not just my premise, that's my experience.

If they tried that
today,
millions of people would starve around the world.

Oh, not that again. How did the world make it to the 40's, when your
chemical pushing buddies took over commercial agriculture?

I don't think horse manure
and
other organic fertilizers cost any more than chemical ones. Your logic is
flawed and
the organic farmers just love the way you shop.

First of all it isn't just horse manure (that's actually pretty low
quality manure, cow is better, whihch just goes to show that you don't
know shit). And I'm glad they're happy with how I shop, that'll
encourage them to grow even more. Do you understand economics? If
they grow more, prices will come down. And they have. I've been
buying organic ever since organic has been available (when I don't
have my own organically-grown produce to pick out of my own garden)
and I've seen the prices come down.

The organic farmers are just
now
making some headway in their efforts, but they have a ways to go. I know that
with
apples, they are restricted to mostly average tasting varieties. They still
have not come
up with an apple that resists fungus and disease and yet tastes great. As for
organic insect
protection of apples, it's marginal, at best.

Sez you, Sherwindu, and you have little credibility with me, because
my personal experience tells me otherwise..
--
Ann, gardening in Zone 6a
South of Boston, Massachusetts
e-mail address is not checked
******************************

On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 22:46:32 -0500, sherwindu
wrote:

First of all, using language like 'chemical head' shows your stupidity and
adolescence although I think your age is well beyond that. Your whole premise is that
organic methods can take over from chemical ones and do an adequate job. If they tried that
today, millions of people would starve around the world. I don't think horse manure
and other organic fertilizers cost any more than chemical ones. Your logic is
flawed and the organic farmers just love the way you shop. The organic farmers are just
now making some headway in their efforts, but they have a ways to go. I know that
with apples, they are restricted to mostly average tasting varieties. They still
have not come up with an apple that resists fungus and disease and yet tastes great. As for
organic insect protection of apples, it's marginal, at best.

Sherwin

I don't call people chemical heads, I call them nozzle heads. Ever
bite into a 'Honey Crisp?' Oh, don't know what that is? Hmm, sorry.
How's this, I don't any longer use any pesticides, synthetic OR
organic. I've given up on killing anything at all.

Surprise!!!! My garden is in balance and I have tolerance for some
damage. Subsequently, I have minimal damage. I use one of the
largest producers of grapes for wine is Gallo in California. They've
been organic for decades. Do you thing it would still be organic if
no profit was made?

In article ,
Ann wrote:

Billy Rose expounded:

In article ,
sherwindu wrote:

Sherwin

Dumber than dirt. I'll try to expand on that tomorrow. Actually, that
was an insult to dirt. Dirt's OK. I like dirt. But find out what Shirwin
ate because he is really dumb.

- Billy
Coloribus gustibus non disputatum (mostly)

He's never going to give up the chemicals, and he rants on and on at
anyone who suggests things can be grown without them. Makes me think
he's a sill for Monsanto. Maybe he's the reincarnation of John Riley
from Oz gasp!

I'm with you Ann. Too many posers in the NG claim that reality is the
way they say it is and, they start disparaging you, if you disagree with
them.

Well let's try to fill in this gaping hole of ignorance. Referring to
Earthbound Farms (which Michael Pollan found to be one of the success
stories in organic farming) in the Monterey Valley in California. If
everyone will open their copy of Omnivore's Dilemma and turn to page
165, from the top read:

into a mosaic of giant color blocks: dark green, burgundy, pale green,
blue green. As you get closer you see that the blocks are divided into a
series of eighty-inch-wide raised beds thickly planted with a single
variety. Each weed-free strip is as smooth and flat as a tabletop,
leveled with a laser so that the custom-built harvester can snip each
leaf at precisely the same point. Earthbound's tabletop fields exemplify
one of the most powerful industrial ideas: the tremendous gains in
efficiency to be had when you can conform the irregularity of nature to
the precision and control of a machine.
Apart from the much. higher level of precision-time as well as space are
scrupulously managed on this farm-the organic practices at Earthbound
resemble those I saw at Greenways farm. Frequent tilling is used to
control weeds, though crews of migrant workers, their heads wrapped in
brightly colored cloths against the hot sun, do a last pass
through each block before harvest, pulling weeds by hand. To provide
fertility-the farm's biggest expense-compost is trucked in; some crops
also receive fish emulsion along with their water and a side dressing of
pelleted chicken manure. Over the winter a cover crop of legumes is
planted to build up nitrogen in the soil.
To control pests, every six or seven strips of lettuce is punctuated
with a strip of flowers: sweet alyssum, which attracts the lacewings and
syrphid flies that eat the aphids that can molest lettuces. Aside from
some insecticidal soap to control insects in the cruciferous crops,
pesticides are seldom sprayed. We prefer to practice resistance and
avoidance," Drew Goodman explained. Or, as their farm manager put it,
"You have to give up the macho idea that you can grow anything you want
anywhere you want to." So they closely track insect or disease outbreaks
in their many fields and keep vulnerab1e crops at a safe distance; they
also search out varieties with a strong natural resistance. Occasionally
they'll lose a block to a pest, but as a rule growing baby greens is
less risky since, by definition, the crop stays in the ground for so
short a period of time-usually thirty days or so. Indeed, baby lettuce
is one crop that may well be easier to grow organically than
conventionally: Harsh chemicals can scorch young leaves, and nitrogen
fertilizers render lettuces more vulnerable to insects. It seems the
bugs are attracted to the' free nitrogen in their leaves, and because of
the more rapid growth of chemically nourished plants, insects find their
leaves easier to pierce.

Everyone read again from Harsh Chemicals. This should give pause to
chemical heads that grow produce (in situ or in vitro).

--------

OK. That was the tease.

Open you Omnivore's Dilemma again to page 179 and read from the top:

"The organic label is a marketing tool," Secretary Glickman said. "It is
not a statement about food safety. Nor is 'organic' a value judgment
about nutrition or quality."
Some intriguing recent research suggests otherwise. A study by
University of California-Davis researchers published in the Journal of
Agriculture and Food Chemistry in 2003 described an experiment in which
identical varieties of corn, strawberries, and blackberries grown in
neighboring plots using different methods (including organically and
conventionally) were compared for levels of vitamins and polyphenols.
Polyphenols are a group of secondary metabolites manufactured by plants
that we've recently learned play an important role in human health and
nutrition. Many are potent antioxidants; some play a role in preventing
or fighting cancer; others exhibit antimicrobial properties. The Davis
researchers found that organic and otherwise sustainably grown fruits
and vegetables contained significantly higher levels of both ascorbic
acid (vitamin C) and a wide range of polyphenols.
The recent discovery of these secondary metabolites in plants has ought
our understanding of the biological and chemical complexity of foods to
a deeper level of refinement; history suggests we haven't gotten
anywhere near the bottom of this question, either. The first level was
reached early in the nineteenth century with the identification of the
macronutrients-protein, carbohydrate, and fat. Having isolated
these compounds, chemists thought they'd unlocked the key to human
nutrition. Yet some people (such as sailors) living on diets rich in
macronutrients nevertheless got sick. The mystery was solved when
scientists discovered the major vitamins-a second key to human
nutrition. Now it's the polyphenols in plants that we're learning play a
critical role in keeping us healthy. (And which might explain why diets
heavy in processed food fortified with vitamins still aren't as
nutritious as fresh foods.) You wonder what else is going on in these
plants, what other undiscovered qualities in them we've evolved to
depend on.
In many ways the mysteries of nutrition at the eating end of the food
chain closely mirror the mysteries of fertility at the growing end: The
two realms are like wildernesses that we keep convincing ourselves our
chemistry has mapped, at least until the next level of complexity comes
into view. Curiously, Justus von Liebig, the nineteenth-century
German chemist with the spectacularly ironic surname, bears
responsibility for science's overly reductive understanding of both ends
of the food chain. It was Liebig, you'll recall, who thought he had
found the chemical key to soil fertility with the discovery of NPK, and
it was the same Liebig who thought he had found the key to human
nutrition when identified the macronutrients in food. Liebig wasn't
wrong on either count, yet in both instances he made the fatal mistake
of thinking that what we knew about nourishing plants and people was all
we need to know to keep them healthy. It's a mistake we'll probably keep
repeating until we develop a deeper respect for the complexity of food a
soil and, perhaps, the links between the two.
But back to the polyphenols, which may him' at the nature of that link.
Why in the world should organically grown blackberries or corn contain
significantly more of these compounds? The authors of Davis study
haven't settled the question, but they offer two suggest theories. The
reason plants produce these compounds in the first place is to defend
themselves against pests and diseases; the more press from pathogens,
the more polyphenols a plant will produce. These compounds, then, are
the products of natural selection and, more specifically, the
coevolutionary relationship between plants and the species that prey on
them. Who would have guessed that humans evolved to profit from a diet
of these plant pesticides? Or that we would invent an agriculture that
then deprived us of them? The Davis authors hypothesize that plants
being defended by man-made pesticides don't need to work as hard to make
their own polyphenol pesticides. Coddled by us and our chemicals, the
plants see no reason to invest their sources in mounting a strong
defense. (Sort of like European nations during the cold war.)
A second explanation (one that subsequent research seems to suppport)
may be that the radically simplified soils in which chemically
fertilized plants grow don't supply all the raw ingredients needed to
synthesize these compounds, leaving the plants more vulnerable to
attack, as we know conventionally grown plants tend to be. NPK might
be sufficient for plant growth yet still might not give a plant
everything it needs to manufacture ascorbic acid or lycopene or
resveratrol in quantity. As it happens, many of the polyphenols (and
especially a sublet called the flavonols) contribute to the
characteristic taste of a fruit or vegetable. Qualities we can't yet
identify, in soil may contribute qualities we've only just begun to
identify in our foods and our bodies.
Reading the Davis study I couldn't help thinking about the early
proponents of organic agriculture, people like Sir Albert Howard and J.
I. Rodale, who would have been cheered, if unsurprised, by the findings.
Both men were ridiculed for their unscientific conviction that a
reductive approach to soil fertility-the NPK mentality-would diminish
the nutritional quality of the food grown in it and, in turn, the health
of the people who lived on that food. All carrots are not created equal,
they believed; how we grow it, the soil we grow it in, what we feed that
soil all contribute qualities to a carrot, qualities that may yet escape
the explanatory net of our chemistry. Sooner or later the soil
scientists and nutritionists will catch up to Sir Howard, heed his
admonition that we begin "treating the whole problem of health in soil,
plant, animal and man as one great subject."

-------

I think I'll go pet my earthworms now.

- Billy
Coloribus gustibus non disputatum (mostly)

Ann wrote:

sherwindu expounded:

First of all, using language like 'chemical head' shows your stupidity and
adolescence,
although I think your age is well beyond that.

Sticks and stones and all that. Unless the shoe fits....
Your whole premise is that organic methods
can take over from chemical ones and do an adequate job.

That's not just my premise, that's my experience.

If they tried that
today,
millions of people would starve around the world.

Oh, not that again. How did the world make it to the 40's, when your
chemical pushing buddies took over commercial agriculture?

I don't think horse manure
and
other organic fertilizers cost any more than chemical ones. Your logic is
flawed and
the organic farmers just love the way you shop.

First of all it isn't just horse manure (that's actually pretty low
quality manure, cow is better, whihch just goes to show that you don't
know shit). And I'm glad they're happy with how I shop, that'll
encourage them to grow even more. Do you understand economics? If
they grow more, prices will come down. And they have. I've been
buying organic ever since organic has been available (when I don't
have my own organically-grown produce to pick out of my own garden)
and I've seen the prices come down.

The organic farmers are just
now
making some headway in their efforts, but they have a ways to go. I know that
with
apples, they are restricted to mostly average tasting varieties. They still
have not come
up with an apple that resists fungus and disease and yet tastes great. As for
organic insect
protection of apples, it's marginal, at best.

Sez you, Sherwindu, and you have little credibility with me, because
my personal experience tells me otherwise..

You rant and rave about chemicals, but give no examples of how good your apples,
etc.
taste when grown purely organic. I will stick with chemicals when I need them
to allow
me to grow the kinds of fruit I like. Really, I'm not interested in
establishing credibility
with you. By the way Annbal, the name is sherwin, not sherwindu, or chemical
head.


--
Ann, gardening in Zone 6a
South of Boston, Massachusetts
e-mail address is not checked
******************************

jangchub wrote:

On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 22:46:32 -0500, sherwindu
wrote:

First of all, using language like 'chemical head' shows your stupidity and
adolescence although I think your age is well beyond that. Your whole premise is that
organic methods can take over from chemical ones and do an adequate job. If they tried that
today, millions of people would starve around the world. I don't think horse manure
and other organic fertilizers cost any more than chemical ones. Your logic is
flawed and the organic farmers just love the way you shop. The organic farmers are just
now making some headway in their efforts, but they have a ways to go. I know that
with apples, they are restricted to mostly average tasting varieties. They still
have not come up with an apple that resists fungus and disease and yet tastes great. As for
organic insect protection of apples, it's marginal, at best.

Sherwin

I don't call people chemical heads, I call them nozzle heads.

OK, I give up. What's a nozzle head?

Ever
bite into a 'Honey Crisp?'

You must think you are talking to a novice. I have been growing a Honey Crisp tree
for several years now, along with many other heritage apples and other fruits. You
won't find organic orchardists growing these varieties because they haven't come up
with an adequate organic substitute to protect them. They are growing apple varieties
like Liberty and Williams Pride, which I consider adequate tasting apples. However,
I like the older heritage apples, and those grown more for taste than for disease
resistance. Maybe you can tolerate some rotten apples. I can't, and I feel that they
can be grown safely with chemicals, if used properly. There are some abuses of
chemicals, and I believe that like all other environmental problems they should be
addressed. At his time, I don't think banning chemicals is the right solution. I practice
a combination of organic and chemical fruit growing trying to minimize my chemical
spraying. I'm not ready to give up the use of chemicals, yet.

Sherwin

Oh, don't know what that is? Hmm, sorry.
How's this, I don't any longer use any pesticides, synthetic OR
organic. I've given up on killing anything at all.

Surprise!!!! My garden is in balance and I have tolerance for some
damage. Subsequently, I have minimal damage. I use one of the
largest producers of grapes for wine is Gallo in California. They've
been organic for decades. Do you thing it would still be organic if
no profit was made?

I never said there was no profit in it. In light of the prices they are
charging for organically labeled produce, there must be a big profit
in it. You don't specify what kinds of things you grow. There are
certain varieties of fruit that are less likely to be attacked by fungus
or insects.

Billy Rose wrote:

In article ,
Ann wrote:

Billy Rose expounded:

In article ,
sherwindu wrote:

Sherwin

Dumber than dirt. I'll try to expand on that tomorrow. Actually, that
was an insult to dirt. Dirt's OK. I like dirt. But find out what Shirwin
ate because he is really dumb.

- Billy
Coloribus gustibus non disputatum (mostly)

He's never going to give up the chemicals,

Never said that.

and he rants on and on at
anyone who suggests things can be grown without them. Makes me think
he's a sill for Monsanto.

Wrong again.

Maybe he's the reincarnation of John Riley
from Oz gasp!

I'm with you Ann. Too many posers in the NG claim that reality is the
way they say it is and, they start disparaging you, if you disagree with
them.

Go back and read the thread and see who started using the dispariging
language
like 'chemical head', etc.



Well let's try to fill in this gaping hole of ignorance. Referring to
Earthbound Farms (which Michael Pollan found to be one of the success
stories in organic farming) in the Monterey Valley in California. If
everyone will open their copy of Omnivore's Dilemma and turn to page
165, from the top read:

into a mosaic of giant color blocks: dark green, burgundy, pale green,
blue green. As you get closer you see that the blocks are divided into a
series of eighty-inch-wide raised beds thickly planted with a single
variety. Each weed-free strip is as smooth and flat as a tabletop,
leveled with a laser so that the custom-built harvester can snip each
leaf at precisely the same point. Earthbound's tabletop fields exemplify
one of the most powerful industrial ideas: the tremendous gains in
efficiency to be had when you can conform the irregularity of nature to
the precision and control of a machine.
Apart from the much. higher level of precision-time as well as space are
scrupulously managed on this farm-the organic practices at Earthbound
resemble those I saw at Greenways farm. Frequent tilling is used to
control weeds, though crews of migrant workers, their heads wrapped in
brightly colored cloths against the hot sun, do a last pass
through each block before harvest, pulling weeds by hand. To provide
fertility-the farm's biggest expense-compost is trucked in; some crops
also receive fish emulsion along with their water and a side dressing of
pelleted chicken manure. Over the winter a cover crop of legumes is
planted to build up nitrogen in the soil.
To control pests, every six or seven strips of lettuce is punctuated
with a strip of flowers: sweet alyssum, which attracts the lacewings and
syrphid flies that eat the aphids that can molest lettuces. Aside from
some insecticidal soap to control insects in the cruciferous crops,
pesticides are seldom sprayed. We prefer to practice resistance and
avoidance," Drew Goodman explained. Or, as their farm manager put it,
"You have to give up the macho idea that you can grow anything you want
anywhere you want to." So they closely track insect or disease outbreaks
in their many fields and keep vulnerab1e crops at a safe distance; they
also search out varieties with a strong natural resistance. Occasionally
they'll lose a block to a pest, but as a rule growing baby greens is
less risky since, by definition, the crop stays in the ground for so
short a period of time-usually thirty days or so. Indeed, baby lettuce
is one crop that may well be easier to grow organically than
conventionally: Harsh chemicals can scorch young leaves, and nitrogen
fertilizers render lettuces more vulnerable to insects. It seems the
bugs are attracted to the' free nitrogen in their leaves, and because of
the more rapid growth of chemically nourished plants, insects find their
leaves easier to pierce.

Everyone read again from Harsh Chemicals. This should give pause to
chemical heads that grow produce (in situ or in vitro).

--------

OK. That was the tease.

Open you Omnivore's Dilemma again to page 179 and read from the top:

"The organic label is a marketing tool," Secretary Glickman said. "It is
not a statement about food safety. Nor is 'organic' a value judgment
about nutrition or quality."
Some intriguing recent research suggests otherwise. A study by
University of California-Davis researchers published in the Journal of
Agriculture and Food Chemistry in 2003 described an experiment in which
identical varieties of corn, strawberries, and blackberries grown in
neighboring plots using different methods (including organically and
conventionally) were compared for levels of vitamins and polyphenols.
Polyphenols are a group of secondary metabolites manufactured by plants
that we've recently learned play an important role in human health and
nutrition. Many are potent antioxidants; some play a role in preventing
or fighting cancer; others exhibit antimicrobial properties. The Davis
researchers found that organic and otherwise sustainably grown fruits
and vegetables contained significantly higher levels of both ascorbic
acid (vitamin C) and a wide range of polyphenols.
The recent discovery of these secondary metabolites in plants has ought
our understanding of the biological and chemical complexity of foods to
a deeper level of refinement; history suggests we haven't gotten
anywhere near the bottom of this question, either. The first level was
reached early in the nineteenth century with the identification of the
macronutrients-protein, carbohydrate, and fat. Having isolated
these compounds, chemists thought they'd unlocked the key to human
nutrition. Yet some people (such as sailors) living on diets rich in
macronutrients nevertheless got sick. The mystery was solved when
scientists discovered the major vitamins-a second key to human
nutrition. Now it's the polyphenols in plants that we're learning play a
critical role in keeping us healthy. (And which might explain why diets
heavy in processed food fortified with vitamins still aren't as
nutritious as fresh foods.) You wonder what else is going on in these
plants, what other undiscovered qualities in them we've evolved to
depend on.
In many ways the mysteries of nutrition at the eating end of the food
chain closely mirror the mysteries of fertility at the growing end: The
two realms are like wildernesses that we keep convincing ourselves our
chemistry has mapped, at least until the next level of complexity comes
into view. Curiously, Justus von Liebig, the nineteenth-century
German chemist with the spectacularly ironic surname, bears
responsibility for science's overly reductive understanding of both ends
of the food chain. It was Liebig, you'll recall, who thought he had
found the chemical key to soil fertility with the discovery of NPK, and
it was the same Liebig who thought he had found the key to human
nutrition when identified the macronutrients in food. Liebig wasn't
wrong on either count, yet in both instances he made the fatal mistake
of thinking that what we knew about nourishing plants and people was all
we need to know to keep them healthy. It's a mistake we'll probably keep
repeating until we develop a deeper respect for the complexity of food a
soil and, perhaps, the links between the two.
But back to the polyphenols, which may him' at the nature of that link.
Why in the world should organically grown blackberries or corn contain
significantly more of these compounds? The authors of Davis study
haven't settled the question, but they offer two suggest theories. The
reason plants produce these compounds in the first place is to defend
themselves against pests and diseases; the more press from pathogens,
the more polyphenols a plant will produce. These compounds, then, are
the products of natural selection and, more specifically, the
coevolutionary relationship between plants and the species that prey on
them. Who would have guessed that humans evolved to profit from a diet
of these plant pesticides? Or that we would invent an agriculture that
then deprived us of them? The Davis authors hypothesize that plants
being defended by man-made pesticides don't need to work as hard to make
their own polyphenol pesticides. Coddled by us and our chemicals, the
plants see no reason to invest their sources in mounting a strong
defense. (Sort of like European nations during the cold war.)
A second explanation (one that subsequent research seems to suppport)
may be that the radically simplified soils in which chemically
fertilized plants grow don't supply all the raw ingredients needed to
synthesize these compounds, leaving the plants more vulnerable to
attack, as we know conventionally grown plants tend to be. NPK might
be sufficient for plant growth yet still might not give a plant
everything it needs to manufacture ascorbic acid or lycopene or
resveratrol in quantity. As it happens, many of the polyphenols (and
especially a sublet called the flavonols) contribute to the
characteristic taste of a fruit or vegetable. Qualities we can't yet
identify, in soil may contribute qualities we've only just begun to
identify in our foods and our bodies.
Reading the Davis study I couldn't help thinking about the early
proponents of organic agriculture, people like Sir Albert Howard and J.
I. Rodale, who would have been cheered, if unsurprised, by the findings.
Both men were ridiculed for their unscientific conviction that a
reductive approach to soil fertility-the NPK mentality-would diminish
the nutritional quality of the food grown in it and, in turn, the health
of the people who lived on that food. All carrots are not created equal,
they believed; how we grow it, the soil we grow it in, what we feed that
soil all contribute qualities to a carrot, qualities that may yet escape
the explanatory net of our chemistry. Sooner or later the soil
scientists and nutritionists will catch up to Sir Howard, heed his
admonition that we begin "treating the whole problem of health in soil,
plant, animal and man as one great subject."

-------

I think I'll go pet my earthworms now.

Seems like you have done a lot of research, but you can't convince me that
if we leave plants alone, they will find a way to defend themselves, so we
are
retarding their own efforts by substituting chemicals to do it for them. If
what
you say is true, I will just continue to drink lot's of orange juice and
take my
daily multi-vitamin, and grow the kinds of things I like.

Sherwin



- Billy
Coloribus gustibus non disputatum (mostly)

In article ,
sherwindu wrote:

Ann wrote:

sherwindu expounded:

First of all, using language like 'chemical head' shows your stupidity and
adolescence,
although I think your age is well beyond that.

Sticks and stones and all that. Unless the shoe fits....
Your whole premise is that organic methods
can take over from chemical ones and do an adequate job.

That's not just my premise, that's my experience.

If they tried that
today,
millions of people would starve around the world.

Oh, not that again. How did the world make it to the 40's, when your
chemical pushing buddies took over commercial agriculture?

I don't think horse manure
and
other organic fertilizers cost any more than chemical ones. Your logic is
flawed and
the organic farmers just love the way you shop.

First of all it isn't just horse manure (that's actually pretty low
quality manure, cow is better, whihch just goes to show that you don't
know shit). And I'm glad they're happy with how I shop, that'll
encourage them to grow even more. Do you understand economics? If
they grow more, prices will come down. And they have. I've been
buying organic ever since organic has been available (when I don't
have my own organically-grown produce to pick out of my own garden)
and I've seen the prices come down.

The organic farmers are just
now
making some headway in their efforts, but they have a ways to go. I know
that
with
apples, they are restricted to mostly average tasting varieties. They
still
have not come
up with an apple that resists fungus and disease and yet tastes great. As
for
organic insect
protection of apples, it's marginal, at best.

Sez you, Sherwindu, and you have little credibility with me, because
my personal experience tells me otherwise..

You rant and rave about chemicals, but give no examples of how good your
apples,
etc.
taste when grown purely organic. I will stick with chemicals when I need
them
to allow
me to grow the kinds of fruit I like. Really, I'm not interested in
establishing credibility
with you. By the way Annbal, the name is sherwin, not sherwindu, or
chemical
head.


--
Ann, gardening in Zone 6a
South of Boston, Massachusetts
e-mail address is not checked
******************************

Hence forth it shall be Mud.

Omnivore's Dilemma
BIG ORGANIC p.165
into a mosaic of giant color blocks: dark green, burgundy, pale green,
blue green. As you get closer you see that the blocks are divided into a
series of eighty-inch-wide raised beds thickly planted with a single
variety. Each weed-free strip is as smooth and flat as a tabletop,
leveled with a laser so that the custom-built harvester can snip each
leaf at precisely the same point. Earthbound's tabletop fields exemplify
one of the most powerful industrial ideas: the tremendous gains in
efficiency to be had when you can conform the irregularity of nature to
the precision and control of a machine.
Apart from the much. higher level of precision-time as well as space are
scrupulously managed on this farm-the organic practices at Earthbound
resemble those I saw at Greenways farm. Frequent tilling is used to
control weeds, though crews of migrant workers, their heads wrapped in
brightly colored cloths against the hot sun, do a last pass
through each block before harvest, pulling weeds by hand. To provide
fertility-the farm's biggest expense-compost is trucked in; some crops
also receive fish emulsion along with their water and a side dressing of
pelleted chicken manure. Over the winter a cover crop of legumes is
planted to build up nitrogen in the soil.
To control pests, every six or seven strips of lettuce is punctuated
with a strip of flowers: sweet alyssum, which attracts the lacewings and
syrphid flies that eat the aphids that can molest lettuces. Aside from
some insecticidal soap to control insects in the cruciferous crops,
pesticides are seldom sprayed. We prefer to practice resistance and
avoidance," Drew Goodman explained. Or, as their farm manager put it,
"You have to give up the macho idea that you can grow anything you want
anywhere you want to." So they closely track insect or disease outbreaks
in their many fields and keep vulnerab1e crops at a safe distance; they
also search out varieties with a strong natural resistance. Occasionally
they'll lose a block to a pest, but as a rule growing baby greens is
less risky since, by definition, the crop stays in the ground for so
short a period of time-usually thirty days or so. Indeed, baby lettuce
is one crop that may well be easier to grow organically than
conventionally: Harsh chemicals can scorch young leaves, and nitrogen
fertilizers render lettuces more vulnerable to insects. It seems the
bugs are attracted
to the' free nitrogen in their leaves, and because of the more rapid
growth of chemically nourished plants, insects find their leaves easier
to pierce.
--------

Omnivore's Dilemma
BIG ORGANIC* 179

"The organic label is a marketing tool," Secretary Glickman said. "It is
not a statement about food safety. Nor is 'organic' a value judgment
about nutrition or quality."
Some intriguing recent research suggests otherwise. A study by
University of California-Davis researchers published in the Journal of
Agriculture and Food Chemistry in 2003 described an experiment in which
identical varieties of corn, strawberries, and blackberries grown in
neighboring plots using different methods (including organically and
conventionally) were compared for levels of vitamins and polyphenols.
Polyphenols are a group of secondary metabolites manufactured by plants
that we've recently learned play an important role in human health and
nutrition. Many are potent antioxidants; some play a role in preventing
or fighting cancer; others exhibit antimicrobial properties. The Davis
researchers found that organic and otherwise sustainably grown fruits
and vegetables contained significantly higher levels of both ascorbic
acid (vitamin C) and a wide range of polyphenols.
The recent discovery of these secondary metabolites in plants has ought
our understanding of the biological and chemical complexity of foods to
a deeper level of refinement; history suggests we haven't gotten
anywhere near the bottom of this question, either. The first level was
reached early in the nineteenth century with the identification of the
macronutrients-protein, carbohydrate, and fat. Having isolated
these compounds, chemists thought they'd unlocked the key to human
nutrition. Yet some people (such as sailors) living on diets rich in
macronutrients nevertheless got sick. The mystery was solved when
scientists discovered the major vitamins-a second key to human
nutrition. Now it's the polyphenols in plants that we're learning play a
critical role in keeping us healthy. (And which might explain why diets
heavy in processed food fortified with vitamins still aren't as
nutritious as fresh foods.) You wonder what else is going on in these
plants, what other undiscovered qualities in them we've evolved to
depend on.
In many ways the mysteries of nutrition at the eating end of the food
chain closely mirror the mysteries of fertility at the growing end: The
two realms are like wildernesses that we keep convincing ourselves our
chemistry has mapped, at least until the next level of complexity comes
into view. Curiously, Justus von Liebig, the nineteenth-century
German chemist with the spectacularly ironic surname, bears
responsibility for science's overly reductive understanding of both ends
of the food chain. It was Liebig, you'll recall, who thought he had
found the chemical key to soil fertility with the discovery of NPK, and
it was the same Liebig who thought he had found the key to human
nutrition when identified the macronutrients in food. Liebig wasn't
wrong on either count, yet in both instances he made the fatal mistake
of thinking that what we knew about nourishing plants and people was all
we need to know to keep them healthy. It's a mistake we'll probably keep
repeating until we develop a deeper respect for the complexity of food a
soil and, perhaps, the links between the two.
But back to the polyphenols, which may him' at the nature of that link.
Why in the world should organically grown blackberries or corn contain
significantly more of these compounds? The authors of Davis study
haven't settled the question, but they offer two suggest theories. The
reason plants produce these compounds in the first place is to defend
themselves against pests and diseases; the more press from pathogens,
the more polyphenols a plant will produce. These compounds, then, are
the products of natural selection and, more specifically, the
coevolutionary relationship between plants and the species that prey on
them. Who would have guessed that humans evolved to profit from a diet
of these plant pesticides? Or that we would invent an agriculture that
then deprived us of them? The Davis authors hypothesize that plants
being defended by man-made pesticides don't need to work as hard to make
their own polyphenol pesticides. Coddled by us and our chemicals, the
plants see no reason to invest their sources in mounting a strong
defense. (Sort of like European nations during the cold war.)
A second explanation (one that subsequent research seems to suppport)
may be that the radically simplified soils in which chemically
fertilized plants grow don't supply all the raw ingredients needed to
synthesize these compounds, leaving the plants more vulnerable to
attack, as we know conventionally grown plants tend to be. NPK might
be sufficient for plant growth yet still might not give a plant
everything it needs to manufacture ascorbic acid or lycopene or
resveratrol in quantity. As it happens, many of the polyphenols (and
especially a sublet called the flavonols) contribute to the
characteristic taste of a fruit or vegetable. Qualities we can't yet
identify, in soil may contribute qualities we've only just begun to
identify in our foods and our bodies.
Reading the Davis study I couldn't help thinking about the early
proponents of organic agriculture, people like Sir Albert Howard and J.
I. Rodale, who would have been cheered, if unsurprised, by the findings.
Both men were ridiculed for their unscientific conviction that a
reductive approach to soil fertility-the NPK mentality-would diminish
the nutritional quality of the food grown in it and, in turn, the health
of the people who lived on that food. All carrots are not created equal,
they believed; how we grow it, the soil we grow it in, what we feed that
soil all contribute qualities to a carrot, qualities that may yet escape
the explanatory net of our chemistry. Sooner or later the soil
scientists and nutritionists will catch up to Sir Howard, heed his
admonition that we begin "treating the whole problem of health in soil,
plant, animal and man as one great subject."
------

Of course you could just be one of those types to whom reality is as
unimportant as himself.

Please make your response cogent.

- Billy
Coloribus gustibus non disputatum (mostly)