Topic: Organic worse than non-organic?

[Digeroo]

I am very wary of chemical and try very hard not to use them.  In my gardening life many chemical have come and gone.  Attudes tend to polarlise over particular products until some ghastly effect comes to light and very overdue it is banned.

The manufacturers have a huge incentive to sell and growers are desparate for a solution to blight.  Governments who have licenced the produced also seem to want to play down any adverse effects.  We are all aware of the problems associated with aminopyralid yet it was relicenced and much of the adverse comments have been stifled.  What for example happened to the website Muck in the Muck?

There is a huge rise in certain illnesses but it is very difficult to trace these back to any cause. There is a huge increase in chemicals on food stuffs yet impossible to link possible cause and effect.

I think that it is vital that people query the need for the use of chemicals. 

.

[Ellen K]

I think that the problems with diseases and pests are just going to get worse as we become less rational about dealing with them.

Certainly, my Dad would not have spent the money I have on cages and netting.  We would just have had woodpidgeon for tea 3 times a week to keep their population down.

WRT blight, the most important thing is when you spray.  So last year I had 40 plants and sprayed them once in the 3rd week of July with 1 sachet of mancozeb, 4mg of powder.  And that was enough to protect the whole crop.  So not too bad really compared to some on the site chucking about liters of bordeaux mixture every fortnight through the summer.  And then wondering why there's not an earthworm on their plot.  They were welcomed on mine  :)

[chriscross1966]

Does bring up the two obvious problems with using bordeaux mix (or similar) on potatoes...

1: It does affect earthworms, quoting from a 2000 paper abstract:

"Effects of the fungicide copper oxychloride on the growth and reproduction of Eisenia fetida (Oligochaeta).

Helling B, Reinecke SA, Reinecke AJ.

Department of Zoology, Stellenbosch University, Matieland, Stellenbosch, 7602, South Africa. B.Helling@tu-bs.de
Abstract

The article describes a laboratory experiment to determine the effect of copper oxychloride on the earthworm Eisenia fetida. Copper oxychloride was used because it is the most commonly used fungicide in South African vineyards but not much is known about its toxicity to earthworms. In an experiment lasting 8 weeks, newly hatched earthworms of the species E. fetida were exposed to copper oxychloride mixed into a urine-free cattle manure substrate. Four groups of 10 worms were used per concentration level (control (4.02), 8.92, 15.92, 39.47, 108.72, 346.85 mg Cu kg substrate(-1)). The following life-history parameters were measured: earthworm growth in consecutive weeks, survival rate, maturation time, cocoon production, reproduction success, total number of hatchlings produced, and incubation time. Earthworm growth and cocoon production were significantly reduced at copper oxychloride exposure concentrations of 8.92 mg kg(-1) and higher. Reproduction success in the 8.92 mg Cu kg substrate(-1) was highest. From an exposure concentration of 15. 92 mg Cu kg substrate(-1) and higher, there was a considerable impact of copper oxychloride on reproduction. This could be seen from a reduced reproduction success, a reduced mean and maximum number of hatchlings per cocoon, and a longer incubation time, indicating a strong effect of low copper oxychloride concentrations on this earthworm species.
Copyright 2000 Academic Press."

OK the science isn't great, 10 worms per sample isn't fantastic but it should be enough, the simple fact that they didn't include a copper free trial is a pain, though those figures translate into parts per million (milligrammes in a kilogramme is ppm) and are decently representative I guess of after one spraying, after a typical seasons worth, then on an area that gets dosed repeatedly every year, thoguh that's just a guess on my part, but given application rates and concentrations it seems ball-park to me (and I do have a degree in biology)....

2: It's quite a lime-based product, and we know how much spuds like lime......

I've got three sachets of dithane left, they'll get  used if I feel blight is a serious threat and not otherwise, I don't feel happy with heaving copper based fungicides around my plot (wheras I feel perfectly relaxed about using them in their proscribed manner at sowing time in modules......)

chrisc

[Robert_Brenchley]

I hadn't noticed you supplying evidence, just dogmatism. That's why I'm concerned.

[Vinlander]

To address a couple of points, the Government regulatory agencies expect to see data from trials which have familiar, conventional designs before they will give a licence to sell.  And they really do scrutinise the data, it's a big consultation and it takes them at least a year,  So for drugs and pesticides which have gone through this process, their data is pretty tight. 

There isn't a regulator in the world that would accept Vinlander's statements that there are short cuts with regard to human safety.  That statement about a simple substance being predictable - we wish!

A couple of years ago I followed Quackwatch and it used to surprise me, the venom he met when he tried toquestion the alternative practices.  Not any more  :(

I never suggested that my short cuts should be used instead of a proper regulatory process.

That's either a suspiciously clever bit of misdirection, or a sign that you read my text as selectively as you read Ben Goldacre.

But they are extremely useful short cuts to deciding between two approaches that have both been approved (at some time) by the existing regulatory processes.

I stand by my statement (backed by Ben Goldacre's book) that the only people who can spot a bad trial are people who understand the science but spend most of their time trial-busting instead of doing the science. I'm not going to argue about whether government bodies fulfil both these requirements.

However I am very aware of how quickly many government departments have become the clients of those they should be regulating - there are endless examples and this might be one of the reasons these departments change their names so regularly.

I'm not saying I can offer a better system - it's an important task, but human failings will inevitably take the 'edge' off such organisations.

One thing that isn't short about my short cuts is the time factor. It saves us time now, but biological systems have spent 500 million years developing systems, enzymes etc.  to cope with simple combinations of elements - certainly anything that is found in soil - which is nearly all of them. These systems are remarkably effective at dealing with low doses of poisons - sometimes quite high ones. Unfortunately we have developed to cope best with the ones we encounter most - we seem to have an abnormally high tolerance for (surprisingly deadly) caffeine, but we can't eat everything the lowly rabbit munches with abandon.

Human knowledge includes over 250 years of experience with copper as a control for potato blight (I'm looking forward to some decent programmes on the Irish Potato Famine in 2045 - I might make it - with luck).

There are some elements and simple compounds that are extremely toxic, even insidiously toxic (like mercury or thallium) but they ceased to be unpredictable*  in Victorian times (* in a colloquial sense -  nothing is ever entirely predictable).

The great Richard Feynmann had a lot to say about both the wonders and the shortcomings of the scientific method, and he came to the conclusion that human experience handed down through generations was as important to the final conclusion as the kind of 'science' you can realistically do in biochemistry.

In case you can't see the relevance, this translates as "given a choice of two additives with similar purposes you would be a fool to eat the one that's never been seen on the planet before rather than the one  that's been here since life began".

It also translates as "if you think we now everything about anything you are an idiot".

It may be many decades before we understand all the pathways in the human body. Interactions with entirely new molecules add an order of magnitude to the task.

No chemist would guarantee we know everything about the 'new' complex compounds of high molecular weight synthesised by the Victorians from just C, H, N, P, S - never mind ones that were synthesised only a few decades ago, and used for half that time or less.

I'll say again, you seem to be totally committed to one extreme by assuming the drug etc. companies have our best interests at heart, and the opposite side has very nearly given up science as a weapon against them - but that doesn't mean there is no middle ground.

[Robert_Brenchley]

No need to wait till 2045 for the Famines, there's been plenty written. It was a classic of what can happen when people - for reasons to do with the way Ireland was being run - became dependent on a single variety. Lumpers is extremely high-yielding, and I believe it's a very good potato. But it's extremely susceptible to blight. The new disease was imported, and the rest followed. People growing a second, lower-yielding but less susceptible, variety survived better.

[Vinlander]

The article describes a laboratory experiment to determine the effect of copper oxychloride on the earthworm Eisenia fetida.

Chris,

Eisenia fetida is a worm you only occasionally find in earth - it's a related species in the earthworm family with an entirely different habitat and mode of feeding - it's a brandling worm (like the ones in your compost heap).

That's why they could use manure as a matrix - earthworms process many times their bodyweight of soil to get a day's food. They might visit manure like we visit burger bars but it's not their ideal diet (like us with burgers).

It also meant that the researchers could make sure that 100% of the food was contaminated and the worms had no way of moving away and finding uncontaminated food.

They could have used real earthworms in a predictable inert substrate and mixed in the contaminated manure in a sensible proportion but it was obviously too much trouble - and the faster flow through the gut might have made the results entirely different.

It's also a bit suspicious - earthworms roam through soil and eat it, and most soil contains copper in varying amounts, whereas brandling worms locate and concentrate on piles of dead stuff - which only contain the normal biological trace of copper.

I'd expect earthworms to have evolved to either tolerate it or avoid it. It's no surprise to me that brandlings don't need to tolerate it, and they were given no option to avoid it.

There's nothing here to convince me that earthworms will eat copper given a choice, and there are plenty of other soil organisms that will because their blood is based on copper (like woodlice).

I doubt they even need to move out - there's plenty of other humus to eat while they wait (another advantage of organic growing).

Just goes to prove that a really good piece of science can be as useful as a beautifully made gun that only shoots downwards (into your foot).

Despite this I will compare my spray regime to the surface area and weight of my tomato leaves and include in the uncontaminated humus in my soil (I move my toms about) - to see if it fits anywhere near my ballpark.

Cheers.

[Vinlander]

No need to wait till 2045 for the Famines, there's been plenty written.

Hi Robert,

I read 'The Reason Why' for O level EngLit - nearly half the book is about the famine (280-odd pages, extremely small font - I needed new glasses afterwards).

I was hoping for a nicely made TV documentary that would be instructive and salutory in so many ways (including yours) for a broader public.

Cheers.

[RSJK]

A lot of these pesticides and insecticides which are banned in this country are still being used by a lot of other countries that send food in to are country. 
I read somewhere the other day that even the supermarkets in the UK are now concerned about the lack of vegetables of good quality they can now buy in the  and are now working with organisations to come up with sprays that we can use in the UK.
I am afraid without them we are going to become a Nation without Market Gardeners

[redimp]

I read somewhere the other day that even the supermarkets in the UK are now concerned about the lack of vegetables of good quality they can now buy in the  and are now working with organisations to come up with sprays that we can use in the UK.
I am afraid without them we are going to become a Nation without Market Gardeners

Supermarkets concerned about quality - now there is some comedy.  Cosistency and the ability to knock it out at a cheap price whilst retaining a good margin more like.  The supermarkets aren't concerned about whether there is enough for us - just whether there is enough for them.  I don't really think we should be considering their opinions - and, no, I am not blind as to not think that is not what middle England demands - middle England needs to be woken up.

[Melbourne12]

...  tbh I am not interested in choosing one gardening philosophy, rather I read up on specific things and decide on their individual merits. ....

Gardening is not like choosing a religion where you choose one then must walk a path and not deviate.  You really can pick the best bits out of all the philosophies and use them.  That's a good thing isn't it?

Now THAT is the best post that I've read for some time.  I wholeheartedly agree.

[RSJK]

Totally misquoted Redclanger  I said that they were concerned about the lack of good veg that they could buy in the UK of good quality

[Robert_Brenchley]

[
I was hoping for a nicely made TV documentary that would be instructive and salutory in so many ways (including yours) for a broader public.

Cheers.

It would be good to see people knowing a bit more about it. I tend to go for books every time because they tell me so much more, and I like detail. I've got eyewitness accounts (original source) of people being found dead in their homes, even dropping dead in the streets.

[valmarg]

I think we will be like a lot of other growers on this site.

We could not claim to be organic, BUT what we grow is not treated with pesticides.

We grow tomatoes, chillies/peppers aubergines.  We also grow runner beans, climbing french beans, sweetcorn Swift, and minicorns.  Broad beans is another delicious crop (Imperial Green Longpod) being the best cropper.  Pea Waverex is our choice, it is a petit pois variety, and we have wonderful crops.

We grow carrots in tubs, and sugarsnax is a very good variety.

I'm getting a bit impatient to go aout there and harvest. ;D ;D

valmarg


The runner bean varieties we rowr are Red Rum, White Lady, and we are giving Moonlight a second rty.

[lottie lou]

What book are/were you reading Robert?

[Robert_Brenchley]

The Gospel Standard, or Feeble Christian's support, Vol XIII, 1847. I picked it up about thirty years ago in a junk shop in St. Austell. It's not of much interest generally, except as a document of mid-19th Century grassroots religion, but they collected £300+, a very large sum in those days, for people in Ireland and Scotland, where there were also problems. There's a collection of letters from Ireland, written in February 1847, when whatever crop they managed to gather would have run out. They're absolutely horrific.

[Vinlander]

...  tbh I am not interested in choosing one gardening philosophy, rather I read up on specific things and decide on their individual merits. ....

Gardening is not like choosing a religion where you choose one then must walk a path and not deviate.  You really can pick the best bits out of all the philosophies and use them.  That's a good thing isn't it?

Now THAT is the best post that I've read for some time.  I wholeheartedly agree.

I agree too - but many people don't actually read both sides of a problem - they may be tempted to read most what reads well. When they do find two readable expositions they may be tempted to follow the side that gives the most convincing story with chapter and verse.

Like many crime cases (in real life - not just on TV) the people with the most convincing story may be professionals who are lying convincingly, on the other hand the people whose stories are riddled with errors may be well-meaning bumblers - or even doing the right thing for the wrong reason (like biodynamic gardeners - poor sods - bless their cotton socks).

You need a wide experience of the world and its dark side (PR, sales and marketing, outright crooks) to make a sensible decision.

At the risk of appearing immodest - I have this experience in spades...

Cheers.

[Robert_Brenchley]

So do I, unfortunately, and that's why I'm wary. On the other hand, chemical agriculture is an innovation, while organic has sustained us for several thousand years. The chemical version undoubtedly has increased yields, but there are still a great many questions it hasn't answered, and I don't like evasiveness. So much just hasn't been honestly examined yet.