"Franz Heymann" wrote in message ...
"sw" wrote in message
...
martin wrote:

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 20:20:10 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:

Gardeners should realise that they frequently get their knickers in a
twist
through the misuse of terms which have prior definitions differing from
those they *think* are correct. It has, for instance, occurred in this
very
thread. "Organic" itself is a case in point. There is a great
tendency to
call "beneficient" chemicals "organic" and others "inorganic".

It helps to sell organic food at vast prices to the naive, who think
that they are getting something clean and natural, rather than just
more stuff sprayed with approved "organic" chemicals.

Possibly. But some of us are capable of distinguishing between the
chemicals used on conventional crops and those used on Organic crops.

Must I then take it that organic food == food grown with nice tasting
chemicals and ordinary food == food grown with nasty tasting chemicals?

I wish I knew why these discussions always go round in the same
circles. It's perfectly straightforward: you can feed plants on
relatively pure chemical nutrients prepared in a factory, and they'll
grow. You can also feed plants on impure chemicals such as bone-meal,
dried blood, rotted farmyard muck, etc, and they'll also grow.

What we call "organic", and the French call "biological" systems are
just that: systems. I'm not telling anybody anything they don't know
already when I say these techniques involve replicating as closely as
possible, and where necessary magnifying, the very complex processes
of nutrition under which plant life has evolved. These include, among
many other features, encouraging the organisms, micro- and not so
micro-, which live in and on naturally-formed soils in order to
provide a wide range of nutrients and a balanced ecology in which
organisms harmful to plants don't usually gain the upper hand. The
effect of plant disease is reduced by, among other things, paying
attention to the selection of resistant varieties appropriate to the
area in which they are grown; biological control of pests and the
thoughtful use of relatively simple chemical compounds for pest and
disease control aim at the reduction of environmental pollution.

The advantages of biologically-based systems include stable and
healthy soils with a long-term future, a reduction in our reliance on
the dwindling and increasingly expensive resource of petroleum, and
better animal welfare including that of wildlife; sometimes there is
also an advantage in table quality, and perhaps in nutritional value.

I don't quite see why people always comb through policy statements
like the above to see if they can find something to disagree with --
and if they can't, will introduce bizarre distractions such as the
inadvisability of drinking ****, or the sad effects the neighbour's
oak-leaves may have had on their gardens, or -- the best yet --
"water's a chemical, you know". It's as though some people find
organic cultivation some sort of threat to be countered. Maybe it
depends who you work for.

Mike.

Mike Lyle wrote in message
. ..

Must I then take it that organic food == food grown with nice tasting
chemicals and ordinary food == food grown with nasty tasting chemicals?

I wish I knew why these discussions always go round in the same
circles. It's perfectly straightforward: you can feed plants on
relatively pure chemical nutrients prepared in a factory, and they'll
grow. You can also feed plants on impure chemicals such as bone-meal,
dried blood, rotted farmyard muck, etc, and they'll also grow.

What we call "organic", and the French call "biological" systems are
just that: systems. I'm not telling anybody anything they don't know
already when I say these techniques involve replicating as closely as
possible, and where necessary magnifying, the very complex processes
of nutrition under which plant life has evolved. These include, among
many other features, encouraging the organisms, micro- and not so
micro-, which live in and on naturally-formed soils in order to
provide a wide range of nutrients and a balanced ecology in which
organisms harmful to plants don't usually gain the upper hand. The
effect of plant disease is reduced by, among other things, paying
attention to the selection of resistant varieties appropriate to the
area in which they are grown; biological control of pests and the
thoughtful use of relatively simple chemical compounds for pest and
disease control aim at the reduction of environmental pollution.

The advantages of biologically-based systems include stable and
healthy soils with a long-term future, a reduction in our reliance on
the dwindling and increasingly expensive resource of petroleum, and
better animal welfare including that of wildlife; sometimes there is
also an advantage in table quality, and perhaps in nutritional value.

I don't quite see why people always comb through policy statements
like the above to see if they can find something to disagree with --

The trouble is not 'combing through' policy statements, the trouble us what
happens when policy statements like that above
meet the real world. In the real world of commercial organic
apple growing, frequent large applications of copper-based fungicides are
used. For non-organic commercial apple
growing, smaller less frequent fungicide applications are used.
Which of these two roads leads to,
"stable and healthy soils with a long-term future,
a reduction in our reliance on the dwindling and increasingly expensive
resource of petroleum,
better animal welfare including that of wildlife;
an advantage in table quality, and perhaps in nutritional value."?
Meantime, poor plonkers in supermarkets are buying Organic
(tm) produce that's been flown half-way round the planet, in
order to save the planet!

I have great respect for those who wish to garden without
chemicals, especially those who swam against the tide decades
ago when the white heat of the technological revolution
dictated that modern=good, traditional=bad. However, I have no respect for
those who dictate that their non-chemical
gardening methods are the only legitimate way to do it, and I
scorn those who scream 'poisons' about synthetic chemicals
and ignore all natural poisons.

and if they can't, will introduce bizarre distractions such as the
inadvisability of drinking ****, or the sad effects the neighbour's
oak-leaves may have had on their gardens, or -- the best yet --
"water's a chemical, you know".

I further have no respect for those who wilfully misunderstand the point or
twist others words.

It's as though some people find
organic cultivation some sort of threat to be countered. Maybe it
depends who you work for.


I have been saying for some time that the organic movement, in
my humble opinion, is allowing the public to remain under the
impression that organic supermarket produce is chemical-free
and good for the planet. Eventually there will be a series
of issues which come to the public's awareness, and the
resulting crash in demand for organic produce will do alot
of harm to small 'really' organic growers who will be tarred
with the same brush. That will be a pity.

The organic movement is only one among a variety of approaches for those
who wish to sit lightly on the planet,
and foster health and vitality in us and our surroundings.

--
Anton

In article , Franz Heymann notfranz.
writes

Folk should realise
that it is quite silly to use the term "organic" versus "inorganic" in the
contexts in which they are commonly used in agri- and horticulture.

It's confusing, but an analogy is the different use of 'fruit' in botany
and cookery - eg tomato and rhubarb.
--
Kay Easton

Edward's earthworm page:
http://www.scarboro.demon.co.uk/edward/index.htm

Franz Heymann wrote:

"sw" wrote in message
...
martin wrote:

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 20:20:10 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:

Gardeners should realise that they frequently get their knickers in a
twist through the misuse of terms which have prior definitions
differing from those they *think* are correct. It has, for instance,
occurred in this very thread. "Organic" itself is a case in point.
There is a great tendency to call "beneficient" chemicals "organic"
and others "inorganic".


It helps to sell organic food at vast prices to the naive, who think
that they are getting something clean and natural, rather than just
more stuff sprayed with approved "organic" chemicals.

Possibly. But some of us are capable of distinguishing between the
chemicals used on conventional crops and those used on Organic crops.

Must I then take it that organic food == food grown with nice tasting
chemicals and ordinary food == food grown with nasty tasting chemicals?

Not unless you're so inclined. Organic food is food grown using a subset
of the chemicals and techniques available to conventional agriculture.
The taste of the chemicals is immaterial.

regards
sarah

--
Think of it as evolution in action.

martin wrote:

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 21:39:59 +0100, (sw) wrote:

martin wrote:

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 20:20:10 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:

Gardeners should realise that they frequently get their knickers in a
twist through the misuse of terms which have prior definitions
differing from those they *think* are correct. It has, for instance,
occurred in this very thread. "Organic" itself is a case in point.
There is a great tendency to call "beneficient" chemicals "organic"
and others "inorganic".

It helps to sell organic food at vast prices to the naive, who think
that they are getting something clean and natural, rather than just
more stuff sprayed with approved "organic" chemicals.

Possibly. But some of us are capable of distinguishing between the
chemicals used on conventional crops and those used on Organic crops.

The customers who buy "organic" products in supermarkets have no way
of knowing.

The chances are good that products sold bearing the logo of one of the
registered organic schemes conform to the standards of the scheme, as
these are enforced to the best of the scheme's ability. Anyone desirous
of knowing what those standards allow can obtain a copy of the
standards.


Many of the "organic" alternatives are now on the EU banned list of
chemicals.

If so, then they're no longer in use by anyone :-)


Many of the alternative chemicals being used were far more
dangerous than the current stuff used by normal commercial growers,
according to the BBC. There's a lot of pseudo science about. I blame
rotten education.

The last bit is certainly true.


My wife grows vegetables on an allotment organically. She and other
members use no chemicals. To me that's what organic is all about.

Just muck and magic? I've no objection to a bit of science, especially
when it aids growers producing stuff on a large scale. If we relied
solely on produce raised without any inputs and/or science, we'd have
starved long since :-)

regards
sarah


--
Think of it as evolution in action.

"It seems that you're the one with twisted knickers. We all know what's
meant
without being pedantic."

No we don't all know what's meant - that is the whole point of this
discussion.
It is a writer's responsibility to try to avoid misunderstandings on the
part
of their readers. That is why we have a common language.

Ah - but if we had to define every word we used we'd really be in a pickle.
Very many 'common' words have several meanings, if that were no so there'd
be no need for a thesaurus.

For example - a few words picked out of the air - common, pickle, several,
mother, string, keep, stay ... I shan't bother to continue but they show my
point - that words should be understood in the context they are used. This
is a gardening ng therefore the word 'organic' is understood as having a
meaning relevant to gardening and doesn't need to have a dictionary
definition to qualify it.

Mary

No! Really?

Yes, really.

"Irony doesn't work on usenet" ;-)

So I've realised :-)))

Mary


--
Kay Easton

Edward's earthworm page:
http://www.scarboro.demon.co.uk/edward/index.htm

I'm curious, very curious.

You certainly are!

Mary

In article , martin
writes

My wife grows vegetables on an allotment organically. She and other
members use no chemicals. To me that's what organic is all about.

Organic gardening is about a lot more than not using chemical
fertilisers, herbicides, pesticides and fungicides as I am sure your
wife will agree. In a fully organic system they are not necessary
anyway, but I see organic growing as a better way of treating plants on
their way to becoming food, and a better way of treating the soil and
the environment in which they are to grow.
--
Alan & Joan Gould - North Lincs.

In article , Franz Heymann
writes
I only commented on the vague
usage of the term "organic" in gardening circles.

The word organic has long been recognised by its practitioners as a less
than satisfactory way of describing horticultural methods of that name.
It originally arose 40/50 years ago from the idea of encouraging and
using micro-organisms as distinct from using inert chemicals instead.
Though times and methods have changed a lot since then, the description
'organic' remains for better or for worse.

The term is not vague though, in fact its definition is protected by
law. Any food to be sold to the public as organic has to comply with
very rigorous regulations and standards. Those have been developed in EU
and they are carefully monitored in all participating countries. The
monitoring body appointed by UK Govt. is UKROFS - United Kingdom
Register of Organic Food Standards, from which certification bodies like
Soil Association and others gain their authority to see that EU organic
regs. are complied with by all in the food chain. Growers are given
certification to use the well known organic symbol on their produce, and
loss of that right can mean loss of their livelihood.

Recreational growers can operate as they please providing they do not
sell produce to the public described as organic. HDRA are the main body
assisting and guiding those who wish to practice recognised organic
methods. They have issued guidelines based on EU regs. where they are
applicable, (i.e. leaving out matters such as marketing, transportation,
packaging, advertising, storage, promotion etc.). For practical
recreational gardening purposes, the question of whether some substance
or method is organic, is defined by the guidelines. In those terms,
substances like Glyphosate, Bordeaux Mixture, Nicotine and many others
are not organic.

This subject is dealt with in detail by the urg FAQ at:
http://www.nugget.demon.co.uk/MetaFA...gardening.html
--
Alan & Joan Gould - North Lincs.

"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
om...
"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...
"sw" wrote in message
...
martin wrote:

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 20:20:10 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:

Gardeners should realise that they frequently get their knickers in
a
twist
through the misuse of terms which have prior definitions differing
from
those they *think* are correct. It has, for instance, occurred in
this
very
thread. "Organic" itself is a case in point. There is a great
tendency to
call "beneficient" chemicals "organic" and others "inorganic".

It helps to sell organic food at vast prices to the naive, who think
that they are getting something clean and natural, rather than just
more stuff sprayed with approved "organic" chemicals.

Possibly. But some of us are capable of distinguishing between the
chemicals used on conventional crops and those used on Organic crops.

Must I then take it that organic food == food grown with nice tasting
chemicals and ordinary food == food grown with nasty tasting chemicals?

I wish I knew why these discussions always go round in the same
circles. It's perfectly straightforward: you can feed plants on
relatively pure chemical nutrients prepared in a factory, and they'll
grow. You can also feed plants on impure chemicals such as bone-meal,
dried blood, rotted farmyard muck, etc, and they'll also grow.

The plants can, of course, neither absorb nor digest the materials mentioned
in your last sentence. They have to be broken up by agents in the soil into
simple inorganic substances before the plant can make use of them. What,
then, is wrong with skipping a stage and putting the required chemicals
directly into the soil?

What we call "organic", and the French call "biological" systems are
just that: systems. I'm not telling anybody anything they don't know
already when I say these techniques involve replicating as closely as
possible, and where necessary magnifying, the very complex processes
of nutrition under which plant life has evolved. These include, among
many other features, encouraging the organisms, micro- and not so
micro-, which live in and on naturally-formed soils in order to
provide a wide range of nutrients and a balanced ecology in which
organisms harmful to plants don't usually gain the upper hand. The
effect of plant disease is reduced by, among other things, paying
attention to the selection of resistant varieties appropriate to the
area in which they are grown; biological control of pests and the
thoughtful use of relatively simple chemical compounds for pest and
disease control aim at the reduction of environmental pollution.

The advantages of biologically-based systems include stable and
healthy soils with a long-term future, a reduction in our reliance on
the dwindling and increasingly expensive resource of petroleum, and
better animal welfare including that of wildlife; sometimes there is
also an advantage in table quality, and perhaps in nutritional value.

I don't quite see why people always comb through policy statements
like the above to see if they can find something to disagree with
and if they can't, will introduce bizarre distractions such as the
inadvisability of drinking ****, or the sad effects the neighbour's
oak-leaves may have had on their gardens, or -- the best yet --
"water's a chemical, you know". It's as though some people find
organic cultivation some sort of threat to be countered. Maybe it
depends who you work for.

I do not find it a threat of any kind. I just find it amusing to see how
organic afficionados react when anyone dares to question their dogma.

My policy is much simpler than yours, and I intend sticking to it:
I will use any substance in my gardening efforts, if I have evidence that
the good which might result from its use is likely to greatly exceed the
possible harm which it might do. The moment I see evidence that my opinion
of that substance is wrong, I will cease using it immediately.

Franz

"Kay Easton" wrote in message
...
In article , Franz Heymann notfranz.
writes

Folk should realise
that it is quite silly to use the term "organic" versus "inorganic" in
the
contexts in which they are commonly used in agri- and horticulture.

It's confusing, but an analogy is the different use of 'fruit' in botany
and cookery - eg tomato and rhubarb.

That's a good one.

Franz

"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
om...
"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...
"sw" wrote in message
...
martin wrote:

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 20:20:10 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:

Gardeners should realise that they frequently get their knickers in
a
twist
through the misuse of terms which have prior definitions differing
from
those they *think* are correct. It has, for instance, occurred in
this
very
thread. "Organic" itself is a case in point. There is a great
tendency to
call "beneficient" chemicals "organic" and others "inorganic".

It helps to sell organic food at vast prices to the naive, who think
that they are getting something clean and natural, rather than just
more stuff sprayed with approved "organic" chemicals.

Possibly. But some of us are capable of distinguishing between the
chemicals used on conventional crops and those used on Organic crops.

Must I then take it that organic food == food grown with nice tasting
chemicals and ordinary food == food grown with nasty tasting chemicals?

I wish I knew why these discussions always go round in the same
circles. It's perfectly straightforward: you can feed plants on
relatively pure chemical nutrients prepared in a factory, and they'll
grow. You can also feed plants on impure chemicals such as bone-meal,
dried blood, rotted farmyard muck, etc, and they'll also grow.

The plants can, of course, neither absorb nor digest the materials mentioned
in your last sentence. They have to be broken up by agents in the soil into
simple inorganic substances before the plant can make use of them. What,
then, is wrong with skipping a stage and putting the required chemicals
directly into the soil?

What we call "organic", and the French call "biological" systems are
just that: systems. I'm not telling anybody anything they don't know
already when I say these techniques involve replicating as closely as
possible, and where necessary magnifying, the very complex processes
of nutrition under which plant life has evolved. These include, among
many other features, encouraging the organisms, micro- and not so
micro-, which live in and on naturally-formed soils in order to
provide a wide range of nutrients and a balanced ecology in which
organisms harmful to plants don't usually gain the upper hand. The
effect of plant disease is reduced by, among other things, paying
attention to the selection of resistant varieties appropriate to the
area in which they are grown; biological control of pests and the
thoughtful use of relatively simple chemical compounds for pest and
disease control aim at the reduction of environmental pollution.

The advantages of biologically-based systems include stable and
healthy soils with a long-term future, a reduction in our reliance on
the dwindling and increasingly expensive resource of petroleum, and
better animal welfare including that of wildlife; sometimes there is
also an advantage in table quality, and perhaps in nutritional value.

I don't quite see why people always comb through policy statements
like the above to see if they can find something to disagree with
and if they can't, will introduce bizarre distractions such as the
inadvisability of drinking ****, or the sad effects the neighbour's
oak-leaves may have had on their gardens, or -- the best yet --
"water's a chemical, you know". It's as though some people find
organic cultivation some sort of threat to be countered. Maybe it
depends who you work for.

I do not find it a threat of any kind. I just find it amusing to see how
organic afficionados react when anyone dares to question their dogma.

My policy is much simpler than yours, and I intend sticking to it:
I will use any substance in my gardening efforts, if I have evidence that
the good which might result from its use is likely to greatly exceed the
possible harm which it might do. The moment I see evidence that my opinion
of that substance is wrong, I will cease using it immediately.

Franz

"Kay Easton" wrote in message
...
In article , Franz Heymann notfranz.
writes

Folk should realise
that it is quite silly to use the term "organic" versus "inorganic" in
the
contexts in which they are commonly used in agri- and horticulture.

It's confusing, but an analogy is the different use of 'fruit' in botany
and cookery - eg tomato and rhubarb.

That's a good one.

Franz

"Alan Gould" wrote in message
...
In article , Franz Heymann
writes
I only commented on the vague
usage of the term "organic" in gardening circles.

The word organic has long been recognised by its practitioners as a less
than satisfactory way of describing horticultural methods of that name.
It originally arose 40/50 years ago from the idea of encouraging and
using micro-organisms as distinct from using inert chemicals instead.
Though times and methods have changed a lot since then, the description
'organic' remains for better or for worse.

The term is not vague though, in fact its definition is protected by
law. Any food to be sold to the public as organic has to comply with
very rigorous regulations and standards. Those have been developed in EU
and they are carefully monitored in all participating countries. The
monitoring body appointed by UK Govt. is UKROFS - United Kingdom
Register of Organic Food Standards, from which certification bodies like
Soil Association and others gain their authority to see that EU organic
regs. are complied with by all in the food chain. Growers are given
certification to use the well known organic symbol on their produce, and
loss of that right can mean loss of their livelihood.

Recreational growers can operate as they please providing they do not
sell produce to the public described as organic. HDRA are the main body
assisting and guiding those who wish to practice recognised organic
methods. They have issued guidelines based on EU regs. where they are
applicable, (i.e. leaving out matters such as marketing, transportation,
packaging, advertising, storage, promotion etc.). For practical
recreational gardening purposes, the question of whether some substance
or method is organic, is defined by the guidelines. In those terms,
substances like Glyphosate, Bordeaux Mixture, Nicotine and many others
are not organic.

(a) On what grounds are nicotine classified as "not organic"?
(b) How is pyrethrum classified?
(c) An organic afficionado claimed in this ng (this thread?) that Bordeaux
mixture was classified as organic.

Franz