Does anyone know if Rhizopon rooting products and Hortus IBA Water Soluble
Salts are compatable with organic gardening?
Helen

If you grow ANY thing other than metal, rock, cement, you are growing
something that's ORGANIC. So use whatever you want.


--


SIAR
www.starlords.org
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord


"HPBudlong" wrote in message
...
Does anyone know if Rhizopon rooting products and Hortus IBA Water Soluble
Salts are compatable with organic gardening?
Helen

starlord wrote:

If you grow ANY thing other than metal, rock, cement, you are growing
something that's ORGANIC. So use whatever you want.

You might be interested in my
http://www.rossde.com/garden/garden_organic.html.

--

David E. Ross
http://www.rossde.com/

I use Mozilla as my Web browser because I want a browser that
complies with Web standards. See http://www.mozilla.org/.

I know already all the things that they say must be done to call it Organic,
but that term is the must MIS-USED term there is. It is real simple, if
anything has living cells in it, it is ORGANIC. Rocks, Metals, Crystals,
stuff like that are NON-organic.

So unless someone has figured out how to plant a seed and grow a Steel I
beam, then all living things on Earth fall into the class of being Organic.




--


SIAR
www.starlords.org
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord


"David Ross" wrote in message
...
starlord wrote:

If you grow ANY thing other than metal, rock, cement, you are growing
something that's ORGANIC. So use whatever you want.

You might be interested in my
http://www.rossde.com/garden/garden_organic.html.

--

David E. Ross
http://www.rossde.com/

I use Mozilla as my Web browser because I want a browser that
complies with Web standards. See http://www.mozilla.org/.

"starlord" wrote in
:

I know already all the things that they say must be done to call it
Organic, but that term is the must MIS-USED term there is. It is real
simple, if anything has living cells in it, it is ORGANIC. Rocks,
Metals, Crystals, stuff like that are NON-organic.

So unless someone has figured out how to plant a seed and grow a Steel
I beam, then all living things on Earth fall into the class of being
Organic.

Just because one uses a definition that you are not accustomed to does
not mean the term is misused. The intended meaning may very well be
misunderstood by you and others who insist on assuming the definition
they are familar with, but not misused.

http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dicti...va=organic&x=0
&y=0

On the other hand, there are plenty of hucksters and profiteers who will
not hesitate to pass off any fruit or vegetable as organic under your
definition.

Troll food: there are plenty of bacteria that can 'eat' various ores with
no carbon content and crap out a refined product. There are also simple
self replicating machines in research labs. Lastly, it is possible to
grow a steel I-beam. You just need to use a suitable definition of
'seed'.

"starlord" wrote in
:

I know already all the things that they say must be done to
call it Organic, but that term is the must MIS-USED term
there is. It is real simple, if anything has living cells
in it, it is ORGANIC. Rocks, Metals, Crystals, stuff like
that are NON-organic.

So unless someone has figured out how to plant a seed and
grow a Steel I beam, then all living things on Earth fall
into the class of being Organic.

my, aren't you being obtuse
while i do agree to some extent that having to label non-
chemically treated produce & livestock as "organic" is
somewhat silly, how else does one differentiate it from the
chemically treated? do you have a better solution?
lee

The term Organic, when applied to food, has a legal meaning in the
United States which has been defined by the USDA, effective in October
2001. Before that, it had a fairly loose meaning, being defined by
different states in different ways. Roughly, the meaning is that the
food was grown without using any harmful products (as defined by some
committee) and using practices which do not harm the environment (much).

The term organic, in the chemical sense, has a separate meaning, and is
used only by chemists and biologists. In a sense, it could be called
jargon. (OK, the term applied to food could be called jargon also.)

rant
We need a term to describe food that satisfies some peoples desires to
(1) keep themselves safe from unsafe residues on food and/or (2)
preserve the environment to the extent possible. Without such a term,
consumers have no basis for comparing two competing brands other than
price and appearance (and perhaps past history or publicity). The term
Organic filled that need until the USDA defined it. Now produce cannot
be legally called organic unless it has been grown on a certified farm.
The basis for this action was the desire of the organic food consuming
community for some uniformity of standards so that the term organic
would not be applied to food that did not deserve it.

Since there are significant costs to certification, many growers can no
longer call their produce organic, since it is not economically
feasible. You have the choice of becoming certified and raising the
price of food to cover certification costs, or selling non-organic food.
The USDA estimates that the cost of paperwork for certification of a
small farm is $500, and the fees for certification are an additional
$500 (and up). Some cost sharing is available, but not on a permanent
basis, so costs of organic food will rise just due to the bureacracy.

Since you object to the term organic, and since I feel there is a need
for a term to cover food previously called organic, I invite readers to
come up with a new term to describe food that is grown using all the
organic practices except certification.

I feel the term "natural" is not really useable, since all food that is
grown on a farm could be called a natural product. (Also, note that in a
strict sense, the practices used in farming [plowing, cultivation, etc.]
are not found in nature [separating all human activities from "nature"
{implying that humans are not a part of nature}], so that farming itself
could be called an unnatural practice. However, that leaves everyone who
eats food out in the cold.)

The term "sustainable" has possibilities, but not everyone knows what it
means (if in fact it means anything). Public education will be required
to use this term in a meaningful way.

/rant




starlord wrote:
I know already all the things that they say must be done to call it Organic,
but that term is the must MIS-USED term there is. It is real simple, if
anything has living cells in it, it is ORGANIC. Rocks, Metals, Crystals,
stuff like that are NON-organic.

So unless someone has figured out how to plant a seed and grow a Steel I
beam, then all living things on Earth fall into the class of being Organic.

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 08:46:04 -0500, dps
wrote:

The term Organic, when applied to food, has a legal meaning in the
United States which has been defined by the USDA, effective in October
2001. Before that, it had a fairly loose meaning, being defined by
different states in different ways. Roughly, the meaning is that the
food was grown without using any harmful products (as defined by some
committee) and using practices which do not harm the environment (much).

The term organic, in the chemical sense, has a separate meaning, and is
used only by chemists and biologists. In a sense, it could be called
jargon. (OK, the term applied to food could be called jargon also.)

rant
We need a term to describe food that satisfies some peoples desires to
(1) keep themselves safe from unsafe residues on food and/or (2)
preserve the environment to the extent possible. Without such a term,
consumers have no basis for comparing two competing brands other than
price and appearance (and perhaps past history or publicity). The term
Organic filled that need until the USDA defined it. Now produce cannot
be legally called organic unless it has been grown on a certified farm.
The basis for this action was the desire of the organic food consuming
community for some uniformity of standards so that the term organic
would not be applied to food that did not deserve it.

Since there are significant costs to certification, many growers can no
longer call their produce organic, since it is not economically
feasible. You have the choice of becoming certified and raising the
price of food to cover certification costs, or selling non-organic food.
The USDA estimates that the cost of paperwork for certification of a
small farm is $500, and the fees for certification are an additional
$500 (and up). Some cost sharing is available, but not on a permanent
basis, so costs of organic food will rise just due to the bureacracy.

Since you object to the term organic, and since I feel there is a need
for a term to cover food previously called organic, I invite readers to
come up with a new term to describe food that is grown using all the
organic practices except certification.

I feel the term "natural" is not really useable, since all food that is
grown on a farm could be called a natural product. (Also, note that in a
strict sense, the practices used in farming [plowing, cultivation, etc.]
are not found in nature [separating all human activities from "nature"
{implying that humans are not a part of nature}], so that farming itself
could be called an unnatural practice. However, that leaves everyone who
eats food out in the cold.)

The term "sustainable" has possibilities, but not everyone knows what it
means (if in fact it means anything). Public education will be required
to use this term in a meaningful way.


How about IRiObICAC? It Really is Organic but I Cannot Afford
Certification.

he he.

John

HPBudlong wrote:
Does anyone know if Rhizopon rooting products and Hortus IBA Water
Soluble
Salts are compatable with organic gardening?
Helen

Auxins
The most frequently employed auxins are IAA, IBA, NAA and 2,4-D. IAA, a
naturally occurring auxin is added in concentration of 0.01-10 mg/l.
The synthetic and relatively more active auxins (IBA, NAA and 2,4-D)
are used at the concentration of 0.001-10 mg/l. Other auxins which may
be used in plant tissue culture include 2,4,5-T and 4-CPA. The most
effective auxin of callus proliferation for most cultures is 2,4-D, but
unfortunately it strongly suppresses organogenesis and should not be
used in experiments involving root and shoot initiation . Auxins
generally cause: cell elongation and swelling of tissues, cell division
(callus formation) and the formation of adventitious roots; the
inhibition of adventitious axillary shoot formation, and often
embryogenesis in suspension culture. With low auxin concentration,
adventitious root formation predominates, whereas with high auxin
concentration, root formation fails to occur and callus formation takes
place.

Because Rhizopan is a trademark and the active ingredient is IBA, I
would think it unlikely that either product would meet the criteria for
"organic" gardening.

I see the high priced "Organic" goods in the viggie area of the ONE local
supermarket in the desert town I live in get thrown out after it's 2nd day
while the 'treated' goods sell at good rates. To me that says a lot more.
With the cost of goods going up, people look for bargins, just as I do, and
when I look at a bag of normal oranges going for a price I can afford, and
the so called Organic ones are more than 2 times the price and don't even
'look' as good, they end up sitting there for a day or two and then get
thrown away. I've seen the organic goods go down in numbers too, and it's
funny when I see some of the OG'ic stuff in plastic bags sitting right next
to the same companies normal goods and the price sticks out like a blazing
sign.



--


SIAR
www.starlords.org
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord


"enigma" wrote in message
. ..
"starlord" wrote in
:

I know already all the things that they say must be done to
call it Organic, but that term is the must MIS-USED term
there is. It is real simple, if anything has living cells
in it, it is ORGANIC. Rocks, Metals, Crystals, stuff like
that are NON-organic.

So unless someone has figured out how to plant a seed and
grow a Steel I beam, then all living things on Earth fall
into the class of being Organic.

my, aren't you being obtuse
while i do agree to some extent that having to label non-
chemically treated produce & livestock as "organic" is
somewhat silly, how else does one differentiate it from the
chemically treated? do you have a better solution?
lee

"starlord" expounded:

I see the high priced "Organic" goods in the viggie area of the ONE local
supermarket in the desert town I live in get thrown out after it's 2nd day
while the 'treated' goods sell at good rates. To me that says a lot more.

Sometimes you end up paying far more for 'bargins'. I buy organically
grown produce. Yes, it costs a bit more, but I'm supporting something
I truly believe in. I don't believe in chemicals in my food. YMMV.
--
Ann, Gardening in zone 6a
Just south of Boston, MA
********************************

"starlord" wrote in
:

I see the high priced "Organic" goods in the viggie area of
the ONE local supermarket in the desert town I live in get
thrown out after it's 2nd day while the 'treated' goods
sell at good rates. To me that says a lot more. With the
cost of goods going up, people look for bargins, just as I
do, and when I look at a bag of normal oranges going for a
price I can afford, and the so called Organic ones are more
than 2 times the price and don't even 'look' as good, they
end up sitting there for a day or two and then get thrown
away. I've seen the organic goods go down in numbers too,
and it's funny when I see some of the OG'ic stuff in
plastic bags sitting right next to the same companies
normal goods and the price sticks out like a blazing sign.

really? i'm in the northeast & organic produce is not much
more expensive than regular produce. perhaps this is because
almost *all* produce is imported (the exception being lettuce,
which is easily greenhouse grown all winter) & therefore there
isn't extra shipping for 'organic'.
OTOH, if i *wanted* to pay obscene amounts for 'organic', i
could go to the health food store... they do hike the prices
horribly. i can't see how they stay in business with a
supermarket right next door that sells the exact same produce,
canned & prepared foods for half or less of the health stores
prices.
also, on the subject of greenhouse lettuces, since they are
grown indoors & usually hydroponically, it's just as easy to
grow under organic guidelines as not. shrug
personally, i grow most of my own produce & freeze it, so i
know what's in & on it. i do buy organic strawberries because
strawberries are sponges for chemical residues & sometimes i
want strawberries when i don't have any. i'll pay the extra
50-75 cents per quart for organic.
lee

So there is not a demand for organic foods in your town (I assume it's a
small town since you describe it as having only one supermarket). Your
supermarket will probably drop organic food to stay profitable if it
doesn't sell. In other places where there is a demand, the produce
turnover is higher, which keeps the displays looking fresher. If your
supermarket presents you with cruddy looking stuff, you are within your
rights to not buy it.

The price differential is high where there is a high demand for organic
food. In general, the conventional food is cheaper to produce in the
short term, but the environment pays a higher price for it. I believe
that in the long run, the price differential for organic food will get
smaller, and organic will command a higher proportion of the market than
it does now. However, this will take a decade or two.

As far as appearance of the organic food compared to the conventional
food, there can be a difference because the organic food is not treated
with preservatives. This makes it more difficult to ship to distant
markets. (Note that some produce holds up better without preservatives
than others.) Your best bet is to look for local producers if appearance
is that important to you. For that matter, your best bet is to look for
local producers (organic or not) if taste is that important to you,
since you will be getting fresher produce. Also, if you don't have to
ship something, you can grow varieties that might be softer when ripe,
so you can select the best tasting variety from a larger pool of
vareties (I'm thinking mainly of tomatoes here, but it applies to other
fruits also. For example, Jet Star is a widely home-grown tomato because
of its taste. However, it's too soft to ship, so you won't see it in
supermarkets unless it is produced locally. Even then, it's hard to get
home intact if you put it in a bag with other stuff. Most commercial
tomato producers stay away from it.)

People have come to expect unblemished produce because it is more the
rule than the exception in supermarkets. However, people put up with a
lot of imperfections in their home grown stuff. Since most food is cut
up in preparation, blemishes can be disposed of easily.

All the organic farms I'm familiar with that sell direct to the consumer
present unblemished food for sale. The main difference is in the
shipping and storage. If you insist on eating fresh strawberries in New
England in January, they will have to be shipped in.

The price a consumer is willing to pay for a product is a balance
between the percieved costs and benefits. Many people are willing to pay
a bit more for something that they think will be healthier or better
tasting than the competition. (Of course, the process of convincing them
that one brand will fit their desires better than another is called
"marketing".)



starlord wrote:
I see the high priced "Organic" goods in the viggie area of the ONE local
supermarket in the desert town I live in get thrown out after it's 2nd day
while the 'treated' goods sell at good rates. To me that says a lot more.
With the cost of goods going up, people look for bargins, just as I do, and
when I look at a bag of normal oranges going for a price I can afford, and
the so called Organic ones are more than 2 times the price and don't even
'look' as good, they end up sitting there for a day or two and then get
thrown away. I've seen the organic goods go down in numbers too, and it's
funny when I see some of the OG'ic stuff in plastic bags sitting right next
to the same companies normal goods and the price sticks out like a blazing
sign.

Lots of issues here. Organic growers use chemicals like pesticides,
for example, that are supposed to be non-toxic. Some organic growers,
especially in California, also rely heavily on hand-weeding, which is
very costly. To catch up on the latest hand-weeding regulations issues
in California, see www.ergonica.com/hand_weeder_science.htm. You might
find it interesting to see a new trend that could make life possibly
even more difficult for growers in other states, organic or otherwise.

We all benefit by organic farming, I believe, because it raises the
standards in general for higher quality, safer and more nutritious
food.

I live on the edge of Rosamond, High Mojave Desert of Calif. The one big
supermarket in town is an abertsons. Last week they had navel oranges on
sale, and as I love those, I took what change I had and went up there.
Happen to look over at the Organic shelf, the navel's where going for
29cents a pound, the few oranges over there where $1.25 a pound and where
about 1/3rd the size.

Even here, anything like seedless grapes and most viggies come from way down
south of the boarder from S.America.

And watch the price of strawberrys go threw the roof, most of the berry
fields in the costal area of Calif have been underwater for 2 weeks or more.



--


SIAR
www.starlords.org
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord


"dps" wrote in message
...
So there is not a demand for organic foods in your town (I assume it's a
small town since you describe it as having only one supermarket). Your
supermarket will probably drop organic food to stay profitable if it
doesn't sell. In other places where there is a demand, the produce
turnover is higher, which keeps the displays looking fresher. If your
supermarket presents you with cruddy looking stuff, you are within your
rights to not buy it.