Hi,

Does anyone know what the difference is between a organic seed and a normal
seed?

Regards

Ben Short

Ben Short wrote:
Hi,

Does anyone know what the difference is between a organic seed and a
normal seed?

The price and an infinitessimal amount of pesticide residue.

Organic(TM) seeds are far more likely to go mouldy since they do not
have fungicide treatments. And some things like organic peanuts become
extremely dangerous if not stored properly.

Regards,
Martin Brown

The same as the difference between an "organic" apple and another apple, as found on the greengrocer's shelf, ie, the way in which it was produced. Growing plants from an "organic" seed does not result in the produce being organic unless the culture is also organic. On the other hand, I expect that much "organic" produce may well be grown from seeds whose culture was not "organic".

I hate the term "organic" for this. Organic previously meant something quite different, and is still used in that sense. The French term "biodynamic" is more better.

"Ben Short" wrote in message
...
Hi,

Does anyone know what the difference is between a organic seed and a
normal seed?

Join the HDRA and some seeds come free!

Alan

echinosum wrote:
Ben Short;858424 Wrote:
Does anyone know what the difference is between a organic seed and a
normal
seed?
The same as the difference between an "organic" apple and another
apple, as found on the greengrocer's shelf, ie, the way in which it was
produced. Growing plants from an "organic" seed does not result in the
produce being organic unless the culture is also organic. On the other
hand, I expect that much "organic" produce may well be grown from seeds
whose culture was not "organic".

The amount of residue in the seeds is miniscule and may be important to
keeping the seeds viable for lng term storage.


I hate the term "organic" for this. Organic previously meant something
quite different, and is still used in that sense. The French term
"biodynamic" is more better.

That has connotations of lunacy - quite literally.

If you want a rational basis for agriculture then minimum inputs is the
way to go. Organic(TM) hair shirt growing may be OK for feeding the rich
worried well but it cannot generate sufficient yields to feed everyone.

Regards,
Martin Brown

On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, Martin Brown wrote
echinosum wrote:
Ben Short;858424 Wrote:
Does anyone know what the difference is between a organic seed and a
normal seed?
The same as the difference between an "organic" apple and another
apple, as found on the greengrocer's shelf, ie, the way in which it was
produced. Growing plants from an "organic" seed does not result in the
produce being organic unless the culture is also organic. On the other
hand, I expect that much "organic" produce may well be grown from seeds
whose culture was not "organic".

The amount of residue in the seeds is miniscule and may be important to
keeping the seeds viable for lng term storage.

I hate the term "organic" for this. Organic previously meant
something
quite different, and is still used in that sense. The French term
"biodynamic" is more better.

That has connotations of lunacy - quite literally.

If you want a rational basis for agriculture then minimum inputs is the
way to go. Organic(TM) hair shirt growing may be OK for feeding the
rich worried well but it cannot generate sufficient yields to feed
everyone.


We throw away two-thirds of the food we produce in the west. If we
solved the problem of waste we wouldn't need technological solutions to
grow more.

--
Kate B

PS 'elvira' is spamtrapped - please reply to 'elviraspam' at cockaigne dot org dot uk if you
want to reply personally

Kate Brown wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, Martin Brown wrote
echinosum wrote:
Ben Short;858424 Wrote:
Does anyone know what the difference is between a organic seed and a
normal seed?
The same as the difference between an "organic" apple and another
apple, as found on the greengrocer's shelf, ie, the way in which it was
produced. Growing plants from an "organic" seed does not result in the
produce being organic unless the culture is also organic. On the other
hand, I expect that much "organic" produce may well be grown from seeds
whose culture was not "organic".

The amount of residue in the seeds is miniscule and may be important
to keeping the seeds viable for lng term storage.

I hate the term "organic" for this. Organic previously meant something
quite different, and is still used in that sense. The French term
"biodynamic" is more better.

That has connotations of lunacy - quite literally.

If you want a rational basis for agriculture then minimum inputs is
the way to go. Organic(TM) hair shirt growing may be OK for feeding
the rich worried well but it cannot generate sufficient yields to feed
everyone.

We throw away two-thirds of the food we produce in the west. If we

You may do. I certainly don't. I occasionally fail to finish eating the
odd 40p reduced loaf before it goes mouldy in hot weather and that is
about it. Much of the fruit I buy from supermarkets is reduced and on
its sell by date (and as a result more or less ready to eat). I refuse
point blank to pay top whack for something that was harvested unripe and
chosen for its regular size and shelf life.

I generally support smaller local producers for veg that I cannot grow
but supermarkets are handy. My raspberries are just about finished.
Blueberries about to crop and far too many gooseberries to shake a stick
at. Looks like there will be a bumper crop of brambles this year too.

solved the problem of waste we wouldn't need technological solutions to
grow more.

Yes we will. There are a very large number of people starving in the
third world and without sensible agricultural practices they will
continue to starve, subsist and wreck the land they try to live on.

Organic(TM) is a fad pandering to the "worried well" that allows
supermarkets to charge a super premium price for vastly overpackaged
produce with no convincing benefits whatsoever. Go look at the shelves.

Regards,
Martin Brown

On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, Martin Brown wrote
Kate Brown wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, Martin Brown wrote
echinosum wrote:
Ben Short;858424 Wrote:
Does anyone know what the difference is between a organic seed and a
normal seed?
The same as the difference between an "organic" apple and another
apple, as found on the greengrocer's shelf, ie, the way in which it was
produced. Growing plants from an "organic" seed does not result in the
produce being organic unless the culture is also organic. On the other
hand, I expect that much "organic" produce may well be grown from seeds
whose culture was not "organic".

The amount of residue in the seeds is miniscule and may be important
to keeping the seeds viable for lng term storage.

I hate the term "organic" for this. Organic previously meant something
quite different, and is still used in that sense. The French term
"biodynamic" is more better.

That has connotations of lunacy - quite literally.

If you want a rational basis for agriculture then minimum inputs is
the way to go. Organic(TM) hair shirt growing may be OK for feeding
rich worried well but it cannot generate sufficient yields to feed
everyone.
We throw away two-thirds of the food we produce in the west. If we

You may do. I certainly don't. I occasionally fail to finish eating the
odd 40p reduced loaf before it goes mouldy in hot weather and that is
about it. Much of the fruit I buy from supermarkets is reduced and on
its sell by date (and as a result more or less ready to eat). I refuse
point blank to pay top whack for something that was harvested unripe
and chosen for its regular size and shelf life.

I generally support smaller local producers for veg that I cannot grow
but supermarkets are handy. My raspberries are just about finished.
Blueberries about to crop and far too many gooseberries to shake a
stick at. Looks like there will be a bumper crop of brambles this year
too.

solved the problem of waste we wouldn't need technological solutions
to grow more.

Yes we will. There are a very large number of people starving in the
third world and without sensible agricultural practices they will
continue to starve, subsist and wreck the land they try to live on.

Organic(TM) is a fad pandering to the "worried well" that allows
supermarkets to charge a super premium price for vastly overpackaged
produce with no convincing benefits whatsoever. Go look at the shelves.



I don't throw anything away if I can possibly help it. Below is the
blurb for something I heard and read about recently (OK, two thirds was
a bit exaggerated, I was remembering a bit askew. But add the waste from
North America and Europe to the waste of the developing world as
described below and it adds up to a shocking amount):

Waste

Uncovering the Global Food Scandal
by Tristram Stuart
(Penguin Paperback : 02 Jul 2009}

The world has a 'food problem' - rapidly rising prices, shortages, 100
million people starving, environmental depredation - or it thinks it
does. This book shows that farmers, manufacturers, supermarkets and
consumers in North America and Europe discard between 30 and 50 per cent
of their fresh produce - enough to feed the starving in the world six
times over. Additionally, while affluent nations throw away food through
neglect, up to 40 per cent of some crops in the developing world are
wasted because farmers lack the basic infrastructure to process and
store them before they rot.

Wasteis both a personal journey over the world's food waste mountain and
an objective investigation of this environmental and social problem.
During his travels from Yorkshire to western China, Pakistan to Japan,
Tristram Stuart encounters grotesque examples of profligacy, but also
inspiring and innovative solutions. Terrible though it may seem, the
global food waste problem is also a great opportunity - tackling it is
easy. Unlike giving up air travel for the sake of the planet, avoiding
food waste can be achieved without much sacrifice. Waste is essential
reading for anyone who seeks to remedy the current global food crisis
and how we live now.



--
Kate B

PS 'elvira' is spamtrapped - please reply to 'elviraspam' at cockaigne dot org dot uk if you
want to reply personally

Logically, an organic seed must come from a plant that is grown organically, but a non organic seed must contain inorganic substances. This amount must be so minute as to be measureable only by using very expensive equipment. The amount of inorganic material that the seed imparts to a fully grown plant (or even a seedling) must be unmeasureable. You would get more polution from the atmosphere settling on the plant. Does that make sense, or is it just a long way of putting it.? Bigal

Kate Brown writes
We throw away two-thirds of the food we produce in the west. If we
solved the problem of waste we wouldn't need technological solutions to
grow more.

An interesting statistic. I've heard it widely quoted that we throw away
a third of all the food we buy. So that would imply that half of
anything produced is wasted before it gets to the kitchen, either during
transport or being unsold.
--
Kay

"K" wrote in message
...
Kate Brown writes
We throw away two-thirds of the food we produce in the west. If we solved
the problem of waste we wouldn't need technological solutions to grow
more.

An interesting statistic. I've heard it widely quoted that we throw away a
third of all the food we buy. So that would imply that half of anything
produced is wasted before it gets to the kitchen, either during transport
or being unsold.
--

There is a lot of waste on the farm. For example, a local farmer was
contracted to grow onions for a Lincolnshire based business. When it came
to harvest time they didn't want all of them so acres of good onions were
ploughed into the ground. Also a large percentage of potatoes are dumped
because they are too big, even the chipshops don't want them as they are too
big for the chipping machines.

mark

On 2009-07-29 21:20:38 +0100, "mark" said:


"K" wrote in message
...
Kate Brown writes
We throw away two-thirds of the food we produce in the west. If we solved
the problem of waste we wouldn't need technological solutions to grow
more.

An interesting statistic. I've heard it widely quoted that we throw away a
third of all the food we buy. So that would imply that half of anything
produced is wasted before it gets to the kitchen, either during transport
or being unsold.
--

There is a lot of waste on the farm. For example, a local farmer was
contracted to grow onions for a Lincolnshire based business. When it came
to harvest time they didn't want all of them so acres of good onions were
ploughed into the ground. Also a large percentage of potatoes are dumped
because they are too big, even the chipshops don't want them as they are too
big for the chipping machines.

mark

A local farm is going to plough in pea plants because demand is now
non-existent. That is the nature of modern farming.

--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.com
Shrubs & perennials. Tender & exotics.
South Devon

Kate Brown wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, Martin Brown wrote
Kate Brown wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, Martin Brown wrote

If you want a rational basis for agriculture then minimum inputs is
the way to go. Organic(TM) hair shirt growing may be OK for feeding
rich worried well but it cannot generate sufficient yields to feed
everyone.
We throw away two-thirds of the food we produce in the west. If we

You may do. I certainly don't. I occasionally fail to finish eating
the odd 40p reduced loaf before it goes mouldy in hot weather and that
is about it. Much of the fruit I buy from supermarkets is reduced and
on its sell by date (and as a result more or less ready to eat). I
refuse point blank to pay top whack for something that was harvested
unripe and chosen for its regular size and shelf life.

I generally support smaller local producers for veg that I cannot grow
but supermarkets are handy. My raspberries are just about finished.
Blueberries about to crop and far too many gooseberries to shake a
stick at. Looks like there will be a bumper crop of brambles this year
too.

solved the problem of waste we wouldn't need technological solutions
to grow more.

Yes we will. There are a very large number of people starving in the
third world and without sensible agricultural practices they will
continue to starve, subsist and wreck the land they try to live on.

Organic(TM) is a fad pandering to the "worried well" that allows
supermarkets to charge a super premium price for vastly overpackaged
produce with no convincing benefits whatsoever. Go look at the shelves.

And now that there is a decent scientific study showing that there are
no detectable differences and it is not healthier for you beyond the
feelgood factor and placebo effect of paying more for it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8174482.stm

It about time advertising standards were involved to shoot down some of
the spurious claims about Organic(TM) food.

I don't throw anything away if I can possibly help it. Below is the
blurb for something I heard and read about recently (OK, two thirds was
a bit exaggerated, I was remembering a bit askew. But add the waste from
North America and Europe to the waste of the developing world as
described below and it adds up to a shocking amount):

A fair number of Americans eat 30% more food than is needed to stay
healthy too! Around 30% with serious obesity and 5% morbidly obese and
rapidly rising.

There is no excuse for profligate wastage, but that is how the market
operates. To hold the price high they sometimes junk stuff. And in the
third world they cannot keep it fresh or get it to market in time.

Same sorts of problems happened in the UK when cities first developed
and before there was decent transport infrastructure. And we don't have
monsoon seasons where humidity and heat are high and roads are
impassable to contend with. Impassable roads by snow at least the cold
keeps most things from rotting.

Regards,
Martin Brown

Martin wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 16:03:20 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote:

If you want a rational basis for agriculture then minimum inputs is the
way to go. Organic(TM) hair shirt growing may be OK for feeding the rich
worried well but it cannot generate sufficient yields to feed everyone.

The farmer who owned the farm where I had a holiday in April, said only an idiot
uses more than the bare minimum of pesticides and fertilisers because they cost
so much.

There are enough idiots and illiterates around that cannot read the
instructions that it does happen. Some of the fruit sold domestically in
third world countries is the stuff that has failed pesticide residue
tests for export.

Regards,
Martin Brown

On 2009-07-30 09:01:31 +0100, Martin said:

On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 23:32:44 +0100, Sacha wrote:

On 2009-07-29 21:20:38 +0100, "mark" said:


"K" wrote in message
...
Kate Brown writes
We throw away two-thirds of the food we produce in the west. If we solved
the problem of waste we wouldn't need technological solutions to grow
more.

An interesting statistic. I've heard it widely quoted that we throw away a
third of all the food we buy. So that would imply that half of anything
produced is wasted before it gets to the kitchen, either during transport
or being unsold.
--

There is a lot of waste on the farm. For example, a local farmer was
contracted to grow onions for a Lincolnshire based business. When it came
to harvest time they didn't want all of them so acres of good onions were
ploughed into the ground. Also a large percentage of potatoes are dumped
because they are too big, even the chipshops don't want them as they are too
big for the chipping machines.

mark

A local farm is going to plough in pea plants because demand is now
non-existent. That is the nature of modern farming.

It's not the farming, it's the hold a few supermarkets have over the farmers.

Organic report
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-watchdog.html

These

don't sell to supermarkets. They're part of a large organic cooperative.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.com
Shrubs & perennials. Tender & exotics.
South Devon