For years, industrial-food enthusiasts such as Norman Borlaug have attacked organic farming on two grounds: 1) it produces essentially the same nutritional results as chemical-intensive farming, and 2) it's less productive.
Both of those criticisms are crumbling. This month, the Organic Center released a "state of science" analysis of peer-reviewed studies comparing the nutritional content of organically and conventionally grown veggies. Organic wins by a substantial margin.
Meanwhile, researchers at the University of Wisconsin have published a study (abstract here; press release here) that compared organic and chemical-intensive cropping systems for growing grain and forage (animal feed) crops.
The Organic Center study makes fascinating reading. The authors show that before 2000, very few peer-reviewed studies compared organic and conventional food; the ones that did looked only at "macronutrients" -- vitamins and minerals. In that era, there was little consistent evidence pointing to an organic advantage.
Things have changed since. We're learning that macronutrients only tell part of the story. Evidence is building that micronutrients -- antioxidants, phytonutrients, etc. -- play a serious role in human nutrition.
Moreover, peer-reviewed studies on the topic have boomed since then. And organic is showing a clear advantage in macronutrients (except vitamin A) and a huge advantage in micronutrients.
Here are some bits I learned from reading through the report.
- Overall, the nutritional value of conventional veggies has been falling for decades. As farmers (and their input suppliers and extension agents) have worked to maximize yield, food has become significantly less nutritionally dense. In a survey of veggie crops, for example, riboflavin levels dropped nearly 40 percent between 1950 and 1999. (For more info on this, see an earlier Organic Center report called "Still No Free Lunch: Nutrient Levels in the U.S. Food Supply Eroded in Pursuit of Higher Yields.")
- Dousing vegetables with water and synthetic nitrogen fertilizer (i.e., conventional ag) triggers biological reactions that actually tend to increase vitamin A production. Score one for Borlaug and the industrial-ag apologists. But it also increases the presence of nitrates -- "which is not desirable for overall plant or human health." And it decreases vitamin C levels as well micronutrient levels. So conventional veggies are often richer than organic in vitamin A and nitrates -- and much lower in nearly everything else beneficial.
- The protein content of conventional U.S-grown corn and soybeans has plunged in recent years -- likely due to yield-boosting mania and the near-universal use of genetically modified seeds for those crops.
Overall, this is an extremely interesting study for anyone who wants to understand the effects of chemical-intensive agriculture on nutrition.
As for the study comparing conventional and organic in the field, the press release states the results thusly:
Can organic cropping systems be as productive as conventional systems? The answer is an unqualified "Yes" for alfalfa or wheat and a qualified "Yes, most of the time" for corn and soybeans according to research reported by scientists at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and agricultural consulting firm AGSTAT in the March-April 2008 issue of Agronomy Journal.
In a post last November, I pointed to other peer-reviewed research drawing similar conclusions.
Do diesel-based farmers dream of electric tractors?
Comments
View as Flat
wiscidea Posted 11:27 pm
27 Mar 2008
I was somewhat aware of this issue, but did not consider it significant enough to worry about. We know secondary metabolites are important for human health, all animal health. And I think is well established that these compounds are produced in response to harsh environments and insect damage. Sort of obvious that there is a high probability that organic food would be better for us in this respect. (The strawberries we grow in our garden must be superfood!) I'm surprised more is not known about the accumulation of secondary plant compounds and how this is affected by the environment the plant grows in. I guess pharmaceutical companies can't profit from it, so there is not enough money for research... though one would think that they would want to find plants containing large amounts of such chemicals so they can extract them a sell them as nutritional supplements.
Anyway, the nutritional value of plants grown under a bit of stress, rather than carefully coddled, protected from the slings and arrows of life on planet Earth, could be organic agriculture's strong point.
I encourage everyone interested in promoting organic agriculture to read and unerstand the science behind the Organic Center report.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:25 am
28 Mar 2008
Not to mention prevention of manure and fertilizer run off that releases methane GHG from biomass in wetlands, lakes, and rivers.
Offset outfits like Terrapass and NativeEnergy could really benefit by investing in these biodigestor systems then offsetting GHG from the whole organic ag process. As well as from the kwhs generated with the biogas.
Ag and energy policy are coming together in reality, with these farm and dairy organic biogas projects. Pioneered by organic farmers, Stonyfield, and NativeEnergy.
When will progressive utilities like Wisconsin Electric Power (voluntarily paying solar electric generating customers 23 cents per kwh!) and Excel Energy, integrate smart grid distributed renewable generation and storage technology with solar, wind, and biogas?
Tom and Sean and Joe and Adam and others here with connections within government and industry could maybe mention these trends in the private and public halls of power?
Can't someone get through to Barack on this, maybe through Gore? Joe? Your planet needs you! Hehey. Seriously.
A few campaign stops featuring organic dairy farms with biogas energy, it might get that extra green vote to beat out Nader's spoiler percentage.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
archigeek Posted 1:29 am
28 Mar 2008
The mellotron is your friend.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:58 am
28 Mar 2008
A few choice words for corporate fuel and food farming.
Good idea archi.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
kmp Posted 2:51 am
28 Mar 2008
I don't necessarily agrees that "it is known that secondary plant compounds are important for animal health." Most of the so-called "secondary" (we call them secondary because we do not see a direct need to the plant for these compounds, or to put it another way, we do not yet understand the direct need of the plant for these compounds) compounds that we have identified to date are toxic or poisonous in some fashion. Granted, discoveries of compounds such as morphine, digoxin and taxol have been boons to public health, but they are still toxins in healthy animals. Caffeine, THC, cocaine and nicotine are other common examples of secondary plant compounds. They liven up the party, but I don't know about "important for human health."
Not to say that secondary plant compounds aren't fascinating and potentially contain life-saving medicines. Taxol (tamoxifen) is a great example of such a drug; it was isolated from a yew tree, a type of bush indigenous to the Pacific Northwest. I was working on developing this drug in the early 90's - I can remember at the time there was great furor among environmentalists because the Pacific yew tree, while not technically listed as "endangered" was in short supply in nature, and there were fears that Bristol Myers (the pharmaceutical company manufacturing Taxol) would wipe out the species. At the time, I remember thinking "well, duh - then they wouldn't have a drug!" If anything, a pharmaceutical company discovering something useful (and profitable) in the tree should have convinced environmentalists that it's survival was assured. However that was not the case and there were multiple law-suits filed against BMS for injunctions to stop Taxol research. Eventually BMS managed to produce Taxol synthetically (I think they may have developed a semi-synthetic route, using a more garden-variety variant of yew, but I'm guessing it is fully synthetic now), and Taxol became a blockbuster drug saving many thousands of women from death due to breast cancer.
One would say a win-win: the environmentalists won protection for the Pacific yew, and BMS developed a successful drug. However, paradoxically, I believe it scared a lot of companies away from pursuing plant-based therapeutics at the time; it cost BMS a lot of money, time, and public opionion to wage that war (costs that eventually got passed down to the consumer when the price of Taxol treatment was determined). A smaller company likely would have been forced to abandon development, and a truly effective cancer drug would have been lost.
This is not to say that environmental groups should not sue to protect endangered species - they should (and do). This is also not to say that pharmaceutical companies should not examine secondary plant compounds for potential therapeutic benefit - they should (and do). It is just to say that there are two sides to every story. Every pharma company wants another Taxol - but no pharma company wants another Pacific yew battle. So they move ahead cautiously, and try to find purely synthetic routes of manufacture... and that takes time.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 3:09 am
28 Mar 2008
There are other combinations of technology.
I would like to see (1) what I called pure organic where ever it works to meet our needs for food and fiber crops, (2) the use plants engineered for herbicide-resistance UNTIL an organic method for elimination of tilling is found, (3) elimination of hybrid seeds that farmers can't collect and plant the following year (or at least limits on corporate control of such seed), (4) ZERO tolerance for chemicals (natural or synthetic) unless necessary AND safe for facilitating zero till agriculture, and (5) use of genetic engineering to solve recalcitrant pest and disease problems UNTIL an organic method is found. Genetic engineering would be limited to transfer of genes between closely related species or the expression of proteins that interfere with, say, virus life cycles and the new genes would be expressed only in the tissue attacked by the disease or pest. Genetic engineering would not be permitted simply for improving the appearance of food or producing pharmaceuticals in plants we cultivate for food; the hazards are too great. Finally, patent law should be reformed so that once a variety of plant, whether derived from a cutting from a prized apple tree or genetically engineered by a corporation, leaves the creator's hands, he has no control over what the buyer does with that plant.
I'm clearly somewhere between pure organic and industrial, and not ready to fully embrace organic as long as chemicals are still used, not interested promoting further dependence on chemicals, and not interested in promoting what is apparently called conventional agriculture.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 5:17 am
28 Mar 2008
They can drill and plant seeds and seedling too. Record the location and do pinpoint organic fertilizing and injection watering at the same time. No need for GMO at all anymore. Or herbicide, pesticide doom.
Heirloom seeds could be used everywhere. No more GMO/hybrid seed company/agrichem corp monopolizing food genetics.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 5:25 am
28 Mar 2008
Robots depositing an injection of organic soil ammendment/liquid fertilizer into the sand with seeds or seedling. Then administering more water/fertilizer as needed. Weeds would be mown and mulched between the rows.
If you can grow organically in desert, you could do it just about anywhere.
A biodigestor could recycle crop waste and manure into more organic fertilizer.
Instead, desert countries use agrichem tactics. Wasting huge amounts of water and oil in the process. Spewing GHG from water desalinization and chemical fertilizer, tractors, herbicides, pesticides.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 5:59 am
28 Mar 2008
Have you constructed a prototype for this device? I could use a small programable "car" with a 1/4" drill on it and a means of inserting large seeds, say, lupine seeds, into my prairie restoration project.
If you could teach it to recognize wild parsnip and hack it off slightly below the soil level, that would be great too.
The next step would be programming it to recognize woody stems of a specific diameter, cut them, and drop a bit of herbicide on them. Actually, this would probably be the easiest thing to design it to do!
A fleet of such vehicles would be great for protecting and restoring grassland habitat. Not a substitute for human labor, but a good addition to our arsenal of weapons.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:02 pm
28 Mar 2008
The simplest task to acomplish would be planting, then remembering where the plants are, and weeding, watering, and fertilizing. A laptop ought to have enough computing power to direct a robot to do that wirelessly.
As far as identifying woody plants to eliminate from restored prairie, that might be quite a bit harder for the simple mind of a computer. Would some kind of simple sensor be able to distinguish a woody stalk from a coneflower stalk or switcgrass? Probably so.
I bet engineering students could figure it out, maybe ag and engineering students collaborating?
Plus I have a sneaking suspiscion someone is converting one of those robotic solar powered lawn mowers to do something like this already. It's one of those obvious ideas that has to occur to a lot of inventors.
Who will do it first? UW ag and engineering students working with organic farmers through the universtiy extension? That would be wonderful.
No time for me to work on it. I have a home to build next and my utility company is Excel energy, one of the most progressive companies on renewable smart grid technology and wind. Very cool!
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:05 pm
28 Mar 2008
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 3:25 pm
28 Mar 2008
With really sophisticated visual scanning software the lasers could even recognize pest species of bugs and zap them one by one or just scan areas with aphids.
OR....
We could just employ some of the many people homeless, underemployed and working in boring, dead-end hopeless jobs and let them intensively garden 2-5 acre sections instead of being discarded. We have a bit of a surplus labor problem.
and....
Ducks, geese, chickens, pigs, goats, bats, dragonflies and other usefull critters associated with humans could be given appropriate housing in exchange for services. A gaggle of geese could easily weed a cornfield if it wasn't allowed to be overrun first. A rotation of pigs and goats on a field one year in three or four will gladly empty your field of woody brush and tuberous weedy species. The goat-pig two step does wonders for getting rid of entrenched blackberry patches.
But why do that when we could use LASERS!!
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:37 pm
28 Mar 2008
That's cheap distributed supercomputer computing power. The human minds lending the really sophisticated part of the virtual hive/robot mind.
The computers doing the grunt work. No labor needed, except virtual.
But seriously, remote operators could direct robots through more difficult tasks, virtually. A mine in Canada uses remotely operated mining equipment to make mining safer and more efficient. Repetitive tasks could be "learned" by the computer with human direction.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
archigeek Posted 2:27 am
29 Mar 2008
The mellotron is your friend.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 8:47 am
29 Mar 2008
It would definitely be a good idea to come to some agreement regarding the terms for what's being discussed. Might help people focus on the real concerns.
Here's my opinion...
Genetic Manipulation: any directed breeding to transfer desirable DNA from one population of organisms to another, directed breeding to eliminate undesirable genes from a population of organisms, artificial transfer of DNA from one species--or varitey of organism--to another, or the use of radiation or chemicals to alter geneomes. Very general category. I doubt anyone objects to genetic manipulation by itself. It's the means that are the problem. Borderline case... crossing two species that do not naturally cross to create a useful hybrid... plumcot anyone?
Transgenic: Artificial transfer of a gene from one species or a variety of organism to another. Moving a gene from a specific baterium to a soybeans would be covered by this. So would moving a gene from one variety of apple to another. Does anyone really care if we move genes from one variety of apple to another, or one variety of banana to another?
Radiation or Chemical Mutagenesis: Exposing an organism to radiation or chemicals, with the goal of altering genes... perhaps increasing expression, perhaps turning them off. This is apparently very common, a practical means of eliminating undesirable genes, and considered an acceptable tool for conventional breeding. I'm fascinated by the fact that canola is a product of radiation and chemical mutagenesis, randomly altering DNA to eliminate undesirable traits... now that's a Frankenplant! So is triticale. Yet one can purchase organic canola or triticale seed and products.
GMO: a genetically modified organism... apparently excludes directed breeding, creation of artificial hybrids, and products of artificial mutagenesis. I believe it should include not only organisms resulting from artificial transfer of a gene from one organism to another, but also organisms resulting from artificial mutagenesis. Canola is a GMO, a product of the atomc age. So are a lot of other plants we consume.
Why are folks afraid of trangenic plants, but not afraid of products of radiation and chemical mutagenesis?
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 9:06 am
29 Mar 2008
I thought secondary metabolites included compounds like flavonoids, isoflavonoids, various pigments not essential for photosynthesis, phytoestrogens, sulfur-containing compounds, tannins, other anti-oxidants, essential oils, et cetera.
Such compounds might affect human health indirectly as well. For example, anti-bacterial, anti-fungal, and other compounds produced in response to disease, pests, or harsh environmental conditions might affect the flora found in the gut.
Can someone more knowledgeable provide a third opinion on this matter?
It seems important to know whether organic food--because the plants are not over protected--contain significantly higher levels of desirable or undesirable secondary metabolites. This has profound implications for human health and would likely be the strongest reason for supporting organic agriculture. It would also be important to routinely screen new varieties of plants, whether products of breeding programs or products of genetic engineering, for changes in the levels of secondary metabolites.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 1:40 pm
30 Mar 2008
I teach environmental economics and blog at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:17 am
31 Mar 2008
Those microrhyzomes thrive in organic soil, the roots of the plants feed them sugar, they make fertilizer in the soil biochemically accessible to the plants.
It's symbiosis, the model of how human technology and agriculture iought to work with natural systems.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
otocco Posted 12:35 pm
06 Apr 2008
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 3:42 pm
06 Apr 2008
My favorite examples of this are apples and melons. The visually perfect 2/3 lb, red delicious apple is almost inedible it's been forced so hard. In contrast, one of my favorite apples described here:
An old nondescript green russeted apple, originating in the 1700s. The appearance is, let's be honest, rather unattractive. Ashmeads Kernel is lumpy, mis-shapen, and rather small. The underlying bright green skin is entirely covered in russet. Russet can be very appealing- think of the dull golden glow of Egremont Russet for example - but somehow on this apple it just looks plain dull.
Yet appearances can be deceiving. Ashmeads Kernel has remained popular for well over 2 centuries, and with good reason: it has a distinctive flavour which is quite different from most other varieties. Tasters rarely agree on exactly what the elusive flavour reminds them of, but pear drops is probably close.
<snip>
Placed alongside almost any modern variety, Ashmeads Kernel looks completely outclassed. But in the flavour stakes this old-timer holds its own.-orangepippin.com
a better picture here
I've never seen an Ashmeads Kernel apple that looked as good as the ones pictured here and I pay better than double for every apple that I can afford over organic fuji's. They're that good and also that ugly and the scabbier ones are tastiest. Anything that people won't buy can go into the dryer, apple butter or the cider barrel. Johnny Appleseed spread the seeds of cider apples and it was apple cider vinegar that kept your cabbages and pickles prior to prohibition when cider orchards were pulled in favor of row crops.
There's no such thing as a "wasted" apple if pigs are around nor is there any "wasted greens" where there is a goat to be fed. The pigs like the wormy apples better and chickens will gladly clear up any stray bugs on the grounds. Apple codling moth doesn't have a chance in dropped fruit because the pigs like them better. If pigs and chickens don't take care of your moth problem maybe some bats will. Bats love to eat agricultural insects but they need housing. Since most old hollow trees are cut down these days a bat house, or multiple bat houses, will be needed to keep them comfy. Plus they provide free fertilizer.
Melons are another fruit where appearance can be deceiving. Perfect looking melons can be as tasteless as bubble wrap and melons with nut-hard rinds can overwhelm you with fragrance and flavor. With melons you put your trust in the grower to get it to you at the right time and that the sometimes strange looking thing they hand you is, in fact, edible and good on the inside. Melon disposal isn't really a problem as once more your pigs and goats will want to eat more than is good for them. In compost they quickly disappear into leaves or chips and if your pile is cool redworms will swarm a melon within hours.
Anyway somebody had some strange ideas about wasted food crops on a farm but god only knows what he/she meant by it. Who in their right mind would let food go to waste?
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
greenfire8 Posted 11:09 am
01 May 2008
-Rhizomes are actually horizontal stems of a plant...they can be above (iris, ferns) or below ground (ginger, bermuda grass).
-Rhizobium is a genus of bacteria. From Univ of CO: (mutualists - form mutually beneficial relationship with host) live on the roots of legumes (beans, peas, clover, locust trees, etc.) and convert nitrogen gas (N2) into a form that the legume can use. When the leaves or roots of the legume decompose, nitrogen is released into the soil.
-Mychorrhizal fungi are a very unique and valuable component of healthy soil. Many benefical fungi improve soil tilth by breaking through soil layers and binding together aggregates, but mycorrhizae produce glomalin, a glue that is extremely important for creating/maintaining the pore space needed by roots and other parts of the soil food web.
Glomalin: Hiding Place for a Third of the World's Stored Soil Carbon
Glomalin: Hiding Place for a Third of the World's Stored Soil Carbon
A sticky protein seems to be the unsung hero of soil carbon storage.
Until its discovery in 1996 by ARS soil scientist Sara F. Wright, this soil "super glue" was mistaken for an unidentifiable constituent of soil organic matter. Rather, it permeates organic matter, binding it to silt, sand, and clay particles. Not only does glomalin contain 30 to 40 percent carbon, but it also forms clumps of soil granules called aggregates. These add structure to soil and keep other stored soil carbon from escaping.
Permalink
greenfire8 Posted 11:15 am
01 May 2008
Permalink