thedailygreen.com— With organic foods raking in $16 billion and more annually, some are concerned that Department of Agriculture standards and independent third-party verification may be insufficient to prevent fraud.
Feb 4, 2008View in Crawl 4
You might assume that, but you'd be wrong. Wine producers also sometimes use 'biodynamic' farming techniques, which basically means they're trying to use shamanism to improve their product. Neither the organic nor the biodynamic techniques help, but it does let them sell the Wine at a premium, and some wine tasters like audiophiles will mentally link 'more expensive' with 'better tasting'. Its economical, because it allows them to sell less wine for more money.
You do realize GE crops where not developed to feed third world countries. They where developed to make farming easier. Feeding third world countries was just a side benefit. My brother is an OCIA certified farm. His corn, wheat oats, soybean and spelt production rivals our cousins who farms with chemicals.
IF you want to eat organic eat it, if you don't want to,don't. But if you want true organic get it local, your not going to get true organic at wall mart. theres more to it than what you see on the surface. All of the chemicals that conventional farmers us are killing the ground. Every year they dump more and more chemicals on the ground to get their crops to grow. Look at all these guys putting field tile in fields that by rights shouldn't need it. Why? because they have killed of all of the worms and now the fields won't drain. Keep right on doing what your doing. Someday no matter how much fertilzer yo dump on the ground your GMO crops are NOT going to grow. While you are starving I will be still be eating. The USDA standards are a bunch of bull s**t. They are lax just so corporate farms could get on the band wagon.
zeebo on 02/05/2007: "How well controlled were those studies?"SCHUPHAN’S STUDYTo start, 25 concrete framed plots were filled with sand and 25 with fen (low-land rich soil). Each plot had 10 square meters surface (107.64 square feet) and was filled to a depth of .9 meters (2.95 feet). The top layer of the sand plots was mixed with a small amount of fen to improve water holding at the surface.The plots were designated to receive one of the following types of fertilization: a) NPK, b) Stable manure, c) Stable Manure + NPK, or d) Biodynamic Compost.It is important to note that the exceptionally large quantity of Biodynamic Compost applied, equivalent to 38.38 tons per acre, in contrast to 13.39 tons of Stable Manure.Biodynamic Compost and directions for its application were supplied by Dr. Heinze of the Forschungsring fur biologisch-dynamische Wirtschaftsweise (Research Circle for Methods of Biodynamic Application) in Darmstadt-Eschollbrucken.The Stable manure itself was of “low quality” (low nitrogen) and varied little from year to year. No notes were supplied by Schuphan, regretfully, regarding the nature of neither the animals nor their feed, e.g.: fresh grasses, grains, silage, and hay. In future studies such information could be valuable in comparisons of various Stable Manuring materials and practices. Likewise not supplied was information regarding the specific genetic strains of seeds.Statistical SignificanceTo test for conformity of yield, potatoes were planted in eight plots, four sand an four fen, and fertilized with Stable Manure alone. The strong statistical significance of the uniform results in these potatoes can be held as evidence for the reproducibility of the Biodynamic crops which, unlike all the others, were grown in only two plots per harvest (one fen and one sand).With the exception of the Biodynamic crops, all other fertilizers were tested by planting each crop (eg: potatoes) in four fen plots and four sand plots per fertilizer per harvest, and by growing each crop a number of times over the 12 year period. Eight crops were rotates; spinach, lettuce, savoy (cabbage), potatoes, celeriac (celery root), carrots, fodder beets, and sugar beets. Most rotations were successional, meaning two crops per year in one plot.Herein lies the strength of Werner Schuphan’s studies. He has built an experiment within which is designed a protocol for simultaneous production of multiple replications. Additionally, he has analyzed a representative set of replications for reproducibility and has shown high statistical significance. With the exception of the Biodynamic fertilizer (due perhaps to the sheer weight of fertilizer required), all other experiments have been carried out four times on each of two soils per harvest. In this way, each crop has grown in 26 plots per harvest. That, ladies and gentlemen, is an excellent example of the traditional methods of the Golden Age of German Science.Where applicable, results were averaged according to four morphological types represented by spinach, savoy, potatoes, and carrots.YieldUnfortunately, yield is the contemporary farmer’s first concern. We have made it so. If, instead, his first concern were the nutritional value of the produce, his practice would be considerably different. The structure of our economy has not made it desirable or possible for the farmer to put his emphasis on biological value.Schuphan found that organic fertilization could in no way complete in terms of yield with NPK. He wrote, “These data reflect at the same time the tremendous role of fertilizer practice on yield, and the function of the soil as significant environmental factor influencing yield.”The argument of organic vs. chemical fertilization hinges on two opposing issues: 1) maximum yield against 2) biological value. Figuratively, biological value can be thought of as the sum of the actions of all components, both those that exhibit positive action like the vitamins, and those with negative action like the nitrates. Schuphan’s findings regarding amino acids and conjugated proteins in the above and the current studies throw much weight to the biological side of the balance.Heavy nitrogen fertilization results in a decrease in crops of the sulfur-containing amino acid methionine. Methionine is essential in plant metabolism for the transfer of methyl (CH3) from one compound to another. According to the above and earlier findings of Schuphan, diminished methionine content of crops due to heavy nitrogen fertilization results in decreased biological value of plant proteins.In the current experiments, both potatoes and spinach grown on organically fertilized fen and sand exhibited increases in methionine (express as a % of crude protein) from 11% to 47% above the NPK norms.Schuphan observed a concurrent slight decrease in both glutamic acid and lysine in organically fertilized plants. In his opinion, enhancement of lysine content of crops, which increases nitrogen fertilization, is not worth the loss of methionine and overall biological value of conjugated plant proteins. Lysine is touted by some nutritionists as playing a major role in accelerated growth of young people of the western world. It is richly supplied by animal foods of which there is plentiful supply. There is no need to devalue plant proteins in search of lysine stores for the public.Schuphan wrote, “We may come to the conclusion that organic manuring unequivocally favors sulfur-containing methionine, one of the most important amino acids. Breeders are very keen on genetically improving plant proteins by increasing their methionine contents. We have made it clear, however, that techniques of cultivation—more precisely techniques of fertilization—may also help in this respect.”
error601Feb 4, 2008
So, the government is supposed to start drug testing our carrots now?
absolutelytrueFeb 4, 2008
Truth in labeling is important, but will this testing increase costs?
zeeboFeb 5, 2008
You might assume that, but you'd be wrong. Wine producers also sometimes use 'biodynamic' farming techniques, which basically means they're trying to use shamanism to improve their product. Neither the organic nor the biodynamic techniques help, but it does let them sell the Wine at a premium, and some wine tasters like audiophiles will mentally link 'more expensive' with 'better tasting'. Its economical, because it allows them to sell less wine for more money.
adoogaFeb 5, 2008
Dude, that's hilarious.
zugzubFeb 6, 2008
You do realize GE crops where not developed to feed third world countries. They where developed to make farming easier. Feeding third world countries was just a side benefit. My brother is an OCIA certified farm. His corn, wheat oats, soybean and spelt production rivals our cousins who farms with chemicals.
zugzubFeb 6, 2008
IF you want to eat organic eat it, if you don't want to,don't. But if you want true organic get it local, your not going to get true organic at wall mart. theres more to it than what you see on the surface. All of the chemicals that conventional farmers us are killing the ground. Every year they dump more and more chemicals on the ground to get their crops to grow. Look at all these guys putting field tile in fields that by rights shouldn't need it. Why? because they have killed of all of the worms and now the fields won't drain. Keep right on doing what your doing. Someday no matter how much fertilzer yo dump on the ground your GMO crops are NOT going to grow. While you are starving I will be still be eating. The USDA standards are a bunch of bull s**t. They are lax just so corporate farms could get on the band wagon.
nozzleFeb 6, 2008
I'll stick to pasteurized foods over non-pasteurized any day...
ormesFeb 6, 2008
zeebo on 02/05/2007: "How well controlled were those studies?"SCHUPHAN’S STUDYTo start, 25 concrete framed plots were filled with sand and 25 with fen (low-land rich soil). Each plot had 10 square meters surface (107.64 square feet) and was filled to a depth of .9 meters (2.95 feet). The top layer of the sand plots was mixed with a small amount of fen to improve water holding at the surface.The plots were designated to receive one of the following types of fertilization: a) NPK, b) Stable manure, c) Stable Manure + NPK, or d) Biodynamic Compost.It is important to note that the exceptionally large quantity of Biodynamic Compost applied, equivalent to 38.38 tons per acre, in contrast to 13.39 tons of Stable Manure.Biodynamic Compost and directions for its application were supplied by Dr. Heinze of the Forschungsring fur biologisch-dynamische Wirtschaftsweise (Research Circle for Methods of Biodynamic Application) in Darmstadt-Eschollbrucken.The Stable manure itself was of “low quality” (low nitrogen) and varied little from year to year. No notes were supplied by Schuphan, regretfully, regarding the nature of neither the animals nor their feed, e.g.: fresh grasses, grains, silage, and hay. In future studies such information could be valuable in comparisons of various Stable Manuring materials and practices. Likewise not supplied was information regarding the specific genetic strains of seeds.Statistical SignificanceTo test for conformity of yield, potatoes were planted in eight plots, four sand an four fen, and fertilized with Stable Manure alone. The strong statistical significance of the uniform results in these potatoes can be held as evidence for the reproducibility of the Biodynamic crops which, unlike all the others, were grown in only two plots per harvest (one fen and one sand).With the exception of the Biodynamic crops, all other fertilizers were tested by planting each crop (eg: potatoes) in four fen plots and four sand plots per fertilizer per harvest, and by growing each crop a number of times over the 12 year period. Eight crops were rotates; spinach, lettuce, savoy (cabbage), potatoes, celeriac (celery root), carrots, fodder beets, and sugar beets. Most rotations were successional, meaning two crops per year in one plot.Herein lies the strength of Werner Schuphan’s studies. He has built an experiment within which is designed a protocol for simultaneous production of multiple replications. Additionally, he has analyzed a representative set of replications for reproducibility and has shown high statistical significance. With the exception of the Biodynamic fertilizer (due perhaps to the sheer weight of fertilizer required), all other experiments have been carried out four times on each of two soils per harvest. In this way, each crop has grown in 26 plots per harvest. That, ladies and gentlemen, is an excellent example of the traditional methods of the Golden Age of German Science.Where applicable, results were averaged according to four morphological types represented by spinach, savoy, potatoes, and carrots.YieldUnfortunately, yield is the contemporary farmer’s first concern. We have made it so. If, instead, his first concern were the nutritional value of the produce, his practice would be considerably different. The structure of our economy has not made it desirable or possible for the farmer to put his emphasis on biological value.Schuphan found that organic fertilization could in no way complete in terms of yield with NPK. He wrote, “These data reflect at the same time the tremendous role of fertilizer practice on yield, and the function of the soil as significant environmental factor influencing yield.”The argument of organic vs. chemical fertilization hinges on two opposing issues: 1) maximum yield against 2) biological value. Figuratively, biological value can be thought of as the sum of the actions of all components, both those that exhibit positive action like the vitamins, and those with negative action like the nitrates. Schuphan’s findings regarding amino acids and conjugated proteins in the above and the current studies throw much weight to the biological side of the balance.Heavy nitrogen fertilization results in a decrease in crops of the sulfur-containing amino acid methionine. Methionine is essential in plant metabolism for the transfer of methyl (CH3) from one compound to another. According to the above and earlier findings of Schuphan, diminished methionine content of crops due to heavy nitrogen fertilization results in decreased biological value of plant proteins.In the current experiments, both potatoes and spinach grown on organically fertilized fen and sand exhibited increases in methionine (express as a % of crude protein) from 11% to 47% above the NPK norms.Schuphan observed a concurrent slight decrease in both glutamic acid and lysine in organically fertilized plants. In his opinion, enhancement of lysine content of crops, which increases nitrogen fertilization, is not worth the loss of methionine and overall biological value of conjugated plant proteins. Lysine is touted by some nutritionists as playing a major role in accelerated growth of young people of the western world. It is richly supplied by animal foods of which there is plentiful supply. There is no need to devalue plant proteins in search of lysine stores for the public.Schuphan wrote, “We may come to the conclusion that organic manuring unequivocally favors sulfur-containing methionine, one of the most important amino acids. Breeders are very keen on genetically improving plant proteins by increasing their methionine contents. We have made it clear, however, that techniques of cultivation—more precisely techniques of fertilization—may also help in this respect.”
portos12Jun 23, 2008
Third-party verification may be insufficient to prevent fraud<a class="user" href="http://www.recipesblog.net">http://www.recipesblog.net</a>
benjob1eaDec 7, 2008
Read this before you buy 1 stop organic gardening, click here =>> <a class="user" href="http://www.squidoo.com/1stoporganicgardening1">http://www.squidoo.com/1stoporganicgardening1</a>