Allotments 4 All
Produce => Edible Plants => Topic started by: Vinlander on March 03, 2011, 00:38:57
-
I read about this trial in the gutter press and it was all about how "organic is a waste of time".
But I got my copy of Gardening Which? recently with more detail on their trial of organic vs. non-...
It turns out to be a bit odd !
They took land that had been organic for many years and then put half of it over to chemical fertilisers, herbicides, etc.
They were than surprised how well stuff grew on the non-organic regime.
But the trial only lasted 2 years - so most of the humus would have still been in the soil the whole time.
This is like taking a load of vegetarian fitness fanatics and being surprised that the odd burger doesn't knock them dead in the first week! (I would say most veggies would benefit from a bit of meat in their diet - but that's another story - not to mention that most of the rest of us would benefit even more from eating half as much meat).
I'm dead against the happy-clappy element that would like to turn organic gardening into some kind of religious dogma with words like 'purity' and 'healthful' instead of 'soul' and 'faith', but I don't think anyone would deny that organic growing is all about improving the land to the point where the odd bit of fast food won't do any harm.
They did nothing on pesticide residues or any of the other concerns...
In other words the trial was completely pointless. A waste of my subscription money because it still needs to be done properly by starting with an ordinary but marginal soil and bringing it to productivity.
Cheers.
-
Not all science is bad science... just most of what ends up in the news... :-X
-
I am not sure what the trial was trying to prove, you might expect non-organic to do better as its philosophy is to use the best of whatever is available whereas Organic says "only natural ways to be used". So by definition Organic growers have fewer resources to call on than their non-organic counterparts.
Perhaps it is a backlash to all the people who say Organic does just as well without chemicals? Well, you can weed, fleece and pick up pests by hand on a 10 pole plot if you have 20 hours a week to spend doing it but it's not really feasible on a commercial scale, is it?
-
Well, the people who sell me organic veg do it over 6ha, they have a lot of ingenious tools at their disposal such as steam weeders, mulching, covering etc, and of course some products are allowed in organic farming such as bordeaux mixture. But it's all about careful selection of varieties and constantly improving the soil. Seems to work for them.
I don't see the point myself in growing veg on my allotment that are full of pesticides, herbicides and chemical fertilisers? But that's my choice of course. Of course non organic would do better - it's full of boosters! but what about the eco balance of the plot afterwards? the helpful insects? the soil organisms? I add only manure, compost and dug-in mulch and do not walk on the soil, and even in mid winter it can be easily dug, and is visibly full of worms and organic matter. Why would I fill that with fertiliser? waste of money...
-
Is this the report that was on the news last week, if so I don't think the taste test can be anything to go by. Last year we worked on our daughters allotment for her. She's a busy working mum with 3 children so we got it ready for her.
Iron man calabrese was planted & when ready we harvested a head for her & dropped it off. I said she must try it then. She was amazed at the taste & couldn't understand why the taste was so superior to her veg box which is organic, of course the veg box contents have been hanging around. Even her OH was impressed & that takes some doing.
-
It would have been good to see the two approaches tried on a soil which had been used for non-organic production for a generation, as a comparison.
-
Not all science is bad science... just most of what ends up in the news... :-X
You are so right Saddad - except this is no kind of science - it's the absence of science that causes the problem.
I'm going to have a rant now because I have a bone to pick with the phrase 'bad science' (and Ben Goldacre - despite the fact that his book is excellent in so many ways - his label is misleading and encourages exactly the kind of loose definition that the quacks revel in - in this he's no better than the stuff he decries most).
Would anyone accept the phrase 'bad lifesaving'? Most people wouldn't think it meant 'not enough lifesaving' or people pretending to be lifeguards going in and making a mess of it? No, they'd call that criminal negligence or manslaughter.
They'd assume 'bad lifesaving' refers to stopping young Hitler from drowning!
Malthusians might say penicillin was bad science because it caused overpopulation - they'd be wrong of course, but at least they would have understood the meaning.
Ho hum.
-
I am not sure what the trial was trying to prove, you might expect non-organic to do better as its philosophy is to use the best of whatever is available whereas Organic says "only natural ways to be used". So by definition Organic growers have fewer resources to call on than their non-organic counterparts.
Perhaps it is a backlash to all the people who say Organic does just as well without chemicals? Well, you can weed, fleece and pick up pests by hand on a 10 pole plot if you have 20 hours a week to spend doing it but it's not really feasible on a commercial scale, is it?
read this first, before decrying organic horticulture / agriculture!
http://www.amazon.com/Farmers-Forty-Centuries-Organic-Farming/dp/0486436098
it is available as a free download, but I bought the book, very enlightening!
-
^^ Thank you, I will have a look but tbh I am not interested in choosing one gardening philosophy, rather I read up on specific things and decide on their individual merits. So if chemicals are really needed, I will use them but with respect: eg I will not use bordeaux mixture as I'm trying to build up an earthworm population and it's toxic to them but, if it is necessary to save my tomatoes, I will be giving them a dose of mancozeb though I won't be eating them soon after.
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?
-
^^ Thank you, I will have a look but tbh I am not interested in choosing one gardening philosophy, rather I read up on specific things and decide on their individual merits. So if chemicals are really needed, I will use them but with respect: eg I will not use bordeaux mixture as I'm trying to build up an earthworm population and it's toxic to them but, if it is necessary to save my tomatoes, I will be giving them a dose of mancozeb though I won't be eating them soon after.
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?
I entirely agree with your philosophy but you really need to consider who and what organisations you want to believe...
Mancozeb is a complex and unpredictable molecule - a product with a high profit from a huge and largely amoral industry (you really should read 'Bad Science' despite the misleading name).
Whereas copper is a simple substance essential to life which (as copper sulphate) is easily turned into Bordeaux Mixture - not that anyone is making much profit on the ready mix as there is no patent.
Did you know that copper is incredibly bitter? I find it totally unbelievable that anyone could make earthworms eat it unless they had been starved near death anyway.
Where is the proof that earthworms will eat copper coated leaves given the choice or even object to soils anywhere - except maybe in a vineyard that has been soaked with it for 250 years?
Even then humus is incredibly efficient at mopping up heavy metals - another reason for avoiding an entirely non-organic approach (btw peat doesn't do this).
It's no criticism of anyone that they are prepared to believe quantity over quality of information - but it really is a snowstorm of b*ll*c£s...
Cheers.
-
^^ We have had this discussion before. You need to provide some data to support you claims that mancozeb is any of those things when used according to the label. So far, you have not.
You may have read Ben Goldacre's work, but you have not understood it. This is the core of what he is going on about. That a Claim (in this case: about the properties of a substance) must be supported by data. Otherwise it is completely meaningless. "All my mates agree with me" doesn't count.
"Probably the best lager in the world", "the world's favorite airline" - these are examples of meaningless claims. "Mancozeb is safe and effective when used according to the label" - well, Bayer have produced a raft of data to support this and this has been reviewed by government regulators who have granted it a product licence. Where's your data then ?
-
Copper sulphate certainly can be poisonous; when i was a kid, the garden was over-run by field bindweed. When I heard about heavy metal poisoning, I nicked some copper sulphate from the chemistry lab at school, and painted it on the leaves every day till it all died. I don't think you're using the same quantity spraying bordeaux mix, though. Mancozeb doesn't sound like a good bet to me:
Mancozeb is a cholinesterase inhibitor and can therefore have affects to the
nervous system. Symptoms of exposure include fatigue, headache, blurred
vision, and nausea. At high doses exposed persons can have convulsions,
slurred speech, confusion, and slowed heartbeat. In lower doses, mancozeb can
also cause a skin rash if the chemical has contact with the skin. In one study, a
vineyard worker developed a rash on the forearm as well as inflammation of the
eyelids after handling seedlings which had been treated with mancozeb.
A major toxicological concern with respect to mancozeb and other
dithiocarbamates is its primary metabolite, ethylenethiourea (ETU), shown to
cause thyroid and carcinogenic effects in test animals. Mancozeb is listed as a
chemical known by the State of California to cause cancer in humans. Many
studies dating back to 1980 show that mancozeb can cross the placental barrier
and induce or increase tumor incidence. A recent study shows that mancozeb
and its metabolites are capable of crossing the placental barrier and can produce
DNA damage and initiate tumors in fetal cells.
http://www.environmentalcommons.org/cetos/criticalhabitat/mancozeb.pdf
-
lol bad science alert!
That is not a data sheet and I'm pretty sure that mancozeb is not a cholinesterase inhibitor.
But you can check the data by searching for mancozeb MSDS or similar.
Environmental commons dot org is just a website set up by a few people to promote their own agenda, but I take my hat off to their manipulation of google rankings.
-
http://www.cdms.net/ldat/mp5UC003.pdf
^^ Here you go, a summary of the data. The key environmental issue is its toxicity to aquatic organisms so I'd be very careful anywhere need a pond or river. Just like everything else, you read the data and proceed accordingly.
-
Sorry Ceres, I missed your post. Rather than further rant, here is the link to Bayers website:
http://www.bayergarden.co.uk/news/displaynews.aspx?news_id=150
In summary, Bayer withdrew the product because renewal of the licence for amateur use was too expensive compared to the profit they made from selling those little boxes of Dithane in Wilkos. Not safety reasons, and it is still legal to use the product according to the label until at least 2013 IIRC.
-
Sorry Ceres, I missed your post. Rather than further rant, here is the link to Bayers website:
http://www.bayergarden.co.uk/news/displaynews.aspx?news_id=150
In summary, Bayer withdrew the product because renewal of the licence for amateur use was too expensive compared to the profit they made from selling those little boxes of Dithane in Wilkos. Not safety reasons, and it is still legal to use the product according to the label until at least 2013 IIRC.
Like I said, it all depends on who you want to believe.
And Ben Goldacre devotes much of his book to how easy it is to get a convicing trial result - eg. how difficult it is for even medical experts to tell the difference between a good drug trial and a bad one.
The one thing demonstrated quite efficiently by the book as a whole - is that the only expert who can crack a well-made bad trial is an expert in bad trials. Anyone who understands the actual subject of the trial is too busy doing something useful to gain that kind of expertise.
Basically it comes down to who can afford the kind of filibustering obfuscation needed to pull the wool over people's eyes, and who can't.
I suspect that PR companies rub their hands with glee as more and more ordinary people become disillusioned with science and turn to pseudo-religious dogma. The organic movement is being discredited by entirely subjective ideas of purity - in the same way that the RSPCA has been discredited by a shift towards fluffy anthropomorphism.
Fortunately in biochemistry there is still a short cut that works across the board - simple substances are predictable - especially if they have been moving through entire biological systems for 500-odd million years.
Complex molecules are unpredictable - especially if they have only been moving through biological systems for 5 or 10 years.
Enjoy your tomatoes that smell of rotten cabbages, and I'll enjoy mine that taste bitter - until I polish the copper off with 10 or so brisk strokes on my grubby gardening trews.
Bon appetit!
PS. Even if you believe their trials, please don't insult your own intelligence by believing press releases about their motives!
-
I find your lack of data disturbing.
-
I think you're going to run down anyone and everyone who questions this stuff. I wonder why, unless you're trolling.
-
To be honest I do find it quite distubing, that people believe all this crap.
And that all big companies are entirely corrupt and science is a fraud.
And then just resort to personal comments and insults when someone dares ask for some evidence.
Weird isn't it?
-
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 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.
.
-
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 :)
-
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
-
I hadn't noticed you supplying evidence, just dogmatism. That's why I'm concerned.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
... 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.
-
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
-
[
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.
-
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.
-
What book are/were you reading Robert?
-
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.
-
... 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.
-
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.