re: Organic Gardening

[HPBudlong]

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

[starlord]

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

[David Ross]

You might be interested in my .

[starlord]

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.

[Salty Thumb]

"starlord" wrote in news:- [e-mail]:

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.

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'.

[dps]

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.)

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.

starlord wrote:

[John Bachman]

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

he he.

John

[Nancy G.]

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.

[starlord]

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.

[Ann]

"starlord" expounded:

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.

[enigma]

"starlord" wrote in news: [e-mail]:

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. 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

[dps]

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:

[raycruzer]

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

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.

[starlord]

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.