Is organic gardening viable?

Page 2 of 4  
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 12:03:32 -0700, Janice

I'm a skeptic. As to people not absorbing vitamins in pills, I am *extremely* dubious that the entire world medical community has been hoodwinked for a century. Similarly *I've seen organic advocates...claim" butters no parsnips for me.
I would be very interested in a *respectable* -- i.e., non advocacy -- reference to the chemical composition/nutrients in an average load of cow manure. Yes, manure is good. But is it guaranteed to be the ideal, totally balanced fertilizer? In fact, since someone was unwise enough to mention selenium as an essential mineral, I scurried around and found that it's exclusively drawn from the soil, and if there's a selenium deficiency in dirt (and fodder), animals don't manufacture it.
As for science not having discovered all the vitamins and minerals essential to life, this is possible. However, I'm pretty happy with the ones they *have* discovered and analyzed, as well as having recognized the diseases/conditions caused by well-known deficiencies. "Science" discovered the connection between iodine and various thyroid conditions. You can use as much cow poo as you choose to nourish veg, but if you and your cows live in an iodine-deficient area, it's not going to help that goiter, which used to be quite common before "science" added iodine to salt.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

As I understand it, and I'm willing to be corrected on this, factory fertilisers cause faster degradation of humus by allowing a greater quantity of plants to grow. More plants, of course, leads directly to greater consumption of humus. The other factor, which is present regardless of preferred fertiliser regime, is that of oxygenation. When we till the soil we are introducing vastly increased amounts of oxygen and all the little bugs 'n' stuff just go consumption crazy.
Regarding buildup of salts I understand this to be correct which is why responsible use of fertilisers includes using lime. I'm not sure that humus does act as a buffer since it is pH neutral. It may allow a greater distribution of the salts so that the effect isn't as immediately noticable but an acid build up is unavoidable no matter what fertiliser is used.

Yes, that is what my personal thoughts are and also the recommendation of the book that started this whole thing.

Thanks,
Ivan.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 25 Feb 2004 14:56:03 +1100, Ivan McDonagh

Lime was always mentioned in the garden books.. which is totally inappropriate for my part of the world, as the soils are already alkaline. So, I figure each person should be aware of their soil PH and treat it accordingly. Like I read somewhere that one should not put Oak leaves in the compost bin, because they make it too acidic. That made Me think I should actively seek out oak leaves as my soil is alkaline, and in some areas, like where I'm trying to grow blueberries in areas where all the soil was dug out and a sandy mix of soil and peat moss was mixed and put back into the trenches. I could use some compost that leans to the acidic for that area. It's all relative ;-)
Janice

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 12:03:32 -0700, Janice wrote:

Oh, would that were true! The reality is that many of the bagged (dry granular) fertilizers are industrial by-products from smelting metals.
I did a lot of research into this matter last summer. What I read was enough to convince me. I no longer have the links so you'll have to Google for them yourself. The basic idea is that, when the products left the foundry, they were labeled as 'industrial waste', and EPA regs controlled their disposal and followed the trucks around, leaving a paper trail. Once they were put in 40# bags they were no longer a regulated waste but had become an agricultural product. As a regulated waste they fell under a fairly stern set of laws. As an agricultural product, they fell under laws which basically said that the label on the side had to be truthful, but not necessarily complete. That ended the paper trail and any hope of linking the foundry chemicals with later health effects. Along with the NPK, you can assume you are pouring generous amounts of aluminum and nickle (just two of a long list) onto your soil.
Read a bag of lawn / garden fertilizer sometime. Try to determine the origin of the chemicals inside or even just a full chemical assay. The bag claims an NPK ratio and shows the balance as filler. If ALL the bag contained were the specific chemicals mentioned on the label I would not be nearly so concerned about using it in my garden. However, the list of chemicals in that bag only begins with the NPK assay and continues with another long and unspecified (and thus beyond the reach of informed consent) list.
It's that second list ... the one that isn't printed on the side of the bag that concerns me. Because of it, if I were to use commercial fertilizers, I would not know what witches brew of concentrated chemicals I might be applying to the roots of the food I intended to eat through the winter. While I also do not know the full assay of the compost I make, I have study after study to show me that, so far as any single chemical except carbon and water is concerned, it is a pretty weak mixture. It's strength is in its breadth and the fact that, having come from living things, its chemical composition is primarily the chemicals and ratios of those chemicals that living things have already found useful. They were mixed by The Master Chemist.
I garden organically. I use outside inputs in the form of tree leaves (gathered in the fall from urban curb sides in one busy afternoon, sometimes two), small quantities of greensand and precious little else. I do not add N, P, or K directly to the soil but let the compost heap sort things out. This leads to a nicely buffered soil that has not required any lime in years. Basically, having begun with layers of clay and sand (SE Michigan was anciently lake bottom), I now have what appears to be some really nice potting soil throughout my garden to a depth of over 2 feet (I haven't dug any deeper than that since I started my beds but there was 2 ft. worth of straw and tree leaves in a trench under that 2 ft of soil). The only pesticide I apply is a well-timed shot or two of BT for cabbage loopers and some raw coffee grounds for slugs*. I don't have weak plants so I don't endure much damage. I interplant and just never seem to have large populations of any particular pest.
Organic methods do not forbid the addition of rock powders nor do they forbid the use of outside inputs, such as the tree leaves and grass clippings of neighbors. If in doubt about what chemicals might have been applied to the grass clippings, simply allow the finished compost to season for a year or more. There, problem solved. In an organic soil, nutrients are released at a pretty even pace over the season, so less nutrients are required since less of them go to waste. This is why the initial application of fertilizers to healthy ground results in bumper crops ... they are held in the root zone by the humic compounds until the roots can absorb them. However, failure to maintain the humus levels results in soil that can't hold the nutrients in solution for the plants to take up. That means that increased application levels are needed to maintain acceptable levels of availability ... and farmers are crying the blues over this one as fertilizer expenses go through the roof while yields hold steady or dwindle.
That's how I see the organic / inorganic debate.
Chugga
*I've had the debate over the coffee grounds already. I'm not interested in any level of theoretical argument about why they couldn't possibly work. I know from direct experience that they DO work.
--
http://cannaday.us (genealogy)
http://organic-earth.com (organic gardening)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

OK.
Search term "slag gardening" turned up 3,250 links including this one: http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/BODY-VH019 in which the University of Florida Cooperative Extension Service Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences actually suggest "basic slag" as a source of micro-nutrients for organic gardeners.
Search term "furnace slag chemical composition" turned this up: http://www.p2pays.org/ref/13/12842/bfs1.htm which indicates that more than 90% of slag produced "has been used as an aggregate in Portland cement concrete, asphalt concrete, concrete, asphalt and road bases."
And I also found http://www.tfhrc.gov/hnr20/recycle/waste/ssa1.htm which says much the same thing. The tables in these last two showing the composition of slag makes quite interesting reading.
A search for "smelting waste gardening" and "smelting waste garden" turned up nothing particularly relevent to this discussion. I did note that just about all the sites referred to smelting waste as being a hazardous material. I find it unlikely that environmental protection agencies would allow hazardous waste to just be "lost" and subsequently turn up in agricultural products.
<SNIP>

Ummmm ... further reading that I have done indicates that the reason for the bumper crops is because fertiliser speeds up the transition of organic material into humus. Humus contains large amounts of water soluble nutrients whilst organic material (even after composting) does not hold so much.

Absolutely! And that brings me back to the point that made me ask the question regarding factory fertilisers. The emphasis was actually on the need to maintain good levels of organic matter in the soil whilst the point was that factory fertilisers increase yield.

Ivan.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

don't absorb

I've seen

There is also the issue of trace chemicals in the commercial fertilizers that build up over time and harm the plants. I understand that a whole lot of formerly very fertile land is now barely usable.
Of course, there is no doubt that the bulk organic matter of soil needs to be maintained. If the soil sees only chemical fertilizers, but no horse pucky or grass clippings or whatever, it's going to lose go downhill.
Ray
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 22:43:14 -0500, "Ray Drouillard"

But this is not specific to commercial fertilizers. It is recommeded for farming operations that both soil AND MANURE be regularly monitored to balance nutrients.

You're combining two features here. Chemical fertilizer provides nutrients with little or no organic matter. Composted materials provide organic matter with, usually, not a great deal of nutrition. Animal poo provides nutrients and some organic matter. You have a happier tomato plant with both a soil rich in organic matter AND nutrients, wherever they come from. If all it took was manure, hog waste ponds would fields of corn. Unwise application of chemical fertilizers can 'burn' plants; so can unwise application of chicken manure.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
(snip)

One factor rarely included in the cost/benefits analysis is the problem of possibly running out of fossil fuels(which is where many of the chemicals come from). It's kind of hard to establish a value for that, but it might be important somewhere down the road.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
don' snipped-for-privacy@there.com (The Watcher) wrote in wrote:

Well, yes, the problem of *where* the factory gets the supplies from which the fertiliser is made will certainly be important at some stage. I have no idea of the quantities of fossil fuel actually used to derive the fertiliser but I would expect that the amount of fuel used to provide power to the factories is quite considerable.
The other issue with factory fertiliser is that quite extensive amounts of mining are undertaken to obtain some chemicals - this also is of concern and these points, obviously, could be addressed if only 100% "organic" farming is practised.
I expect that if I, at home, develop my land to a maximum state of fertility (which I am attempting to do by importing chook poo, grass clippings, straw etc) and recycle everything - including composting me when the time comes - then there will be no further degradation. Of course, this also requires that I export nothing at all (including what I shall tactfully call "personal waste"). Of course, all this means that the productivity of land can not possibly *increase* - the best I can hope for is that it will stay the same. If we factor in losses to the air through respiration and losses to the water table through leaching it seems that even using the most radical of recycling isn't going to be enough to even maintain the fertility that I have created.
Since, at this stage, that isn't practical it seems there are only two solutions available:
1. Import ever-increasing amounts of organic matter from elsewhere. This seems like a good idea until the realisation hits that *this* organic matter has to be grown/harvested/whatever by someone who is facing the problem that I am avoiding.
2. Use factory fertilisers and accept the environmental damage.
I don't like either option but since it seems inevitable that option 1 leads to option 2 *for somebody* I think it would be far more responsible of me to just accept the need for option 2 and behave in as environmentally friendly manner as I can whilst doing this.
Now, despite my arguments above, I can see that it is easily possible for me to continue importing organic matter since this is material that will otherwise be sent to the local tip. I can also buy whatever additional organic fertilisers are required. This seems to be more expensive (time and currency) than using factory fertilisers and the only reason I would do this, as I tried to say in the original post, is if there are definite (i.e. proven) health and/or taste reasons. By converting just about all of my grass+weed area to vegetable and grain production I think I'm doing more than my fair share of alleviating the landfill waste and I will continue to import and compost what my time and budget allows.
The taste argument has been concluded to my satisfaction (i.e. taste is more a matter of perception and variety than factory fertiliser) but there have been few comments on health. I'm quietly confident that not too many health problems exist directly affecting me or the soil but I am still curious as to whether or not plants fed factory fertiliser have a changed amount of bio-available nutrients.
Regards,
Ivan.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 18:25:58 GMT, don' snipped-for-privacy@there.com (The Watcher) wrote:

Now I'm going to have to look up how much petroleum it takes to make a packet of MiracleGro. :-) Probably less than transporting a couple of truckloads of manure 20 miles. Encouraging dependence on 'artificial' fertilizer (and petroleum is really 'organic' ultra-compost) is unwise where it's expensive and organic substitutes are readily available. When we run out of oil, it's *not* going to be because we've been using too much commercial fertilizer.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

One problem with racetracks and other sources of manure is that they sometimes spray their manure with pesticides to keep the flies away.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The Watcher wrote:
...snip.....

Also, it comes loaded with worming gunk, so you have to let it stand for a while to break it down, unless you want to kill your worms (soil ones that is). {:-).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Great! I'm even more smug now.
Smugger even.
:~)
Steve
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 12:12:27 -0000, "shazzbat"

After a recent car accident, I was offered some settlement for "pain and suffering." While my pain was minor, I replied that I could 'suffer' at Olympic standard. I haven't the self-confidence for competitive smugging. Although I compete as an amateur.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

knowing
the
economic
factory
be
According to my research (to quote Dorothy Ann), the important thing is to have soil that is rich in organic matter. If you want to supplement that with stuff from bags, you probably won't be able to tell the difference.
Chemical insecticides and the like, however, have to be used with care -- if you use them at all.
Ray
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

one
grown
old
I wasn't commenting about organic gardening. I was replying to this comment:

Terry mentioned a lot of good reasons to garden, but the superior quality of home-grown food is one of the biggest reasons for growing one's own food.
Ray
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Plus it's just plain damn fun to go out to the yard and pick your lunch and cook it fresh off the plants... :-) Tastier too. :-d At least in my experience.
Sometimes tho' I have to wonder if it's worth the water bills!
K.
--
Sprout the Mung Bean to reply...

>,,<Cat's Haven Hobby Farm>,,<Katra at centurytel dot net>,,<
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

lunch
my
That's why we want to buy that bit of property that has a crick running through it. We are pretty well assured of being able to buy the house and about ten acres of surrounding land, but the owner doesn't seem to want to sell us the creek.
Oh well, I can always put in a shallow well and a windmill. It'll add some atmosphere, and go well with the old barn. :-)
Ray
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I have to agree. For me, that IS the big one.
Steve
Ray Drouillard wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
...snip...

I haven't read the book but I adopt the philosophy of "ideology grows no potatoes"
By all means take the long view and care for the soil, air and water, and animals and ourselves. Let's do this using the best information at hand. Accept that the resources of the earth are limited and need to be managed carefully.
There is very good evidence that maintaining organic matter in the soil is important, that broadacre monoculture using synthetics has drawbacks and for many other ideas espoused by organic grower.
Consider the converse too: I recently listened to a great heap of claptrap about why "natural" pyrethrins should be used to kill insects instead of synthetic. These people were discussing the issue most seriously.
If you are going to kill insects then be aware of the consequences of killing them and make a good decision whether it is worth it or not. Don't waste time on the ideological question of whether the poison came out of a test tube; it's still poison. It is more useful to debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
It would be similarly stupid to think that you can get sustainable good results with only "chemical" fertilisers and just as stupid to never use them under any conditions.
David
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.