Introduction part 2

andy Lopez, aka: The Invisible Gardener
Introduction part 2
Summary: 
Classes - Introduction part 2

Introduction part 2

Continued from last week:

Problem #1

The Plants

Perhaps someone should have told them that there is a big difference between plants grown via different systems and the plants they bought in the nursery were not the same quality plants that you get when you start them from organic heirloom seeds of plants that have been grown organically for centuries. These plants will act differently if grown in dead soil and will not get any nutrients from these types of soil. The same is true for the chemically grown plants. They will start off weak and will never get the proper nutrients and therefore will not show any nutrients difference, other than what was given to them.

Problem #2

The Soil

If these researchers did not amend the soil with compost, the food grown will be different from the food grown in a living soil environment.

Let's say the soil was in good shape, and they picked a piece of land that has plenty of good rich soil. If they planted in that, then the results of both will almost be the same; they both will have whatever nutrients are in the soil. Actually the organic side will be able to uptake more of the nutrients than the conventional side over time as the soil becomes more efficient. But let's assume that they are planted in each plot, and gave one side chemical fertilizers, etc., and the other side organic fertilizers, etc. The results will favor the conventional side because on the organic side, organic seeds or organic plants were not used and the soil is not alive with the microorganisms that make the organic fertilizers work better in making nutrients available to the plants.

In the organic system, one practices sustainability while on the conventional side one cannot be sustainable. In the conventional method, soil depletion is a big factor in diminishing food quality and farmers have to use more chemicals and do more damage to the soil than if they were organic, which is sustainable where one can grow more and better-quality food while doing less and less damage to the environment.

Problem #3

GMO (GEO) Foods

None of the studies mention GMO (GEO) foods. Most conventional farmers are using more and more GEO foods while organic farmers cannot use GEO if they want to be certified organic. We were never meant to eat Round Up, 2,4-d or whatever pesticide.

Yes, I feel that Organic farmers are keeping prices higher than they should be, but as the public wants more organic food, these prices will go down because a good organic farmer can compete with conventional farmers in price, just look at Deaf Smith Valley, over 40 organic acres.

Want to do a proper study? Grow each method for 10 years. Get real farmers on both sides.

I know that as a good organic gardener, I can grow more nutritional food than a conventional farmer. I know that my produce will always test out better in nutrients, and I also know that the land will get more and more productive and sustainable. I know I can grow as much if not more than the confidential farmer.

After 30 years of side-by-side research in a study called the Farming Systems Trial (FST)®, Rodale Institute has proven once and for all that organic farming is better than conventional farming. For years now, the conventional farmers along with their conventional suppliers such as Monsanto have been paying for “studies” that prove that there is no difference between food grown organically and food grown “conventionally." By the way, conventional farming is a nice family friendly way of saying business as usual: chemicals to meet every need of the modern farmer! Monsanto especially would like us to think their food is safe and as nutritious as organically grown food. Just like we are told that Nuclear Power is clean if we ignore the radiated waste and that coal burns clean. We just have to ignore everything it destroys through climate change. Conventional farmers would like us to ignore the chemical damage they are doing.

The public is already confused about GMO (not all GMO’s are bad — it's the GEO’s we must control, and now they want us to eat more GEO products without concern for the obvious damage it will do to the environment, humans, animals.

So I am glad to see that this report is finally out. After 30 years of research, they are saying what I have been saying all along:

Organic yields match conventional yields.

Organic outperforms conventional in years of drought.

Organic farming systems build rather than deplete soil organic matter, making it a more sustainable system.

Conventional systems produce 40% more greenhouse gases.
Organic farming systems are more profitable than conventional.

Soil health in the organic systems has increased over time while the conventional systems remain essentially unchanged. Carbon increase was highest in the organic manure system, followed by the organic legume system. The conventional system has shown a loss in carbon in more recent years. Organic fields increased groundwater recharge, and reduced runoff. “Organic agriculture has the potential to secure a global food supply, just as conventional agriculture is today, but with reduced environmental impact.” This is according to a report that came out of the Food and Agricultural Organizations of the United Nations (FAO) International Conference on Organic Agriculture and Food Security.
 

Agroecological farming methods could double global food production in just 10 years, according to a report from the United Nations. Agroecological practices, like organic practices, attempt to mimic natural processes and rely on the biology of the soil and environment rather than synthetic sprays and other inputs. Switching to organic methods in communities where people struggle to feed themselves and their families can lead to a harvest 180% larger than that produced by conventional methods. Organic farms are significantly more profitable. The organic systems uses 45% less energy than conventional systems and also produces less greenhouse gases.

The Report ends with this:

We have shown that organic can feed the world. Now it is time to take on the matter of feeding the world well." The only area I wish they had studied as well is the comparison between organic food and conventional food in their nutritional values. I know that if they were tested, it would be found there is more nutritional value to the organic produce than to the conventional. This follows the simple law of what you put in is what you get out.

next week The Mycelium Intelligence - all about the oldest living being on the planet and it lives in our soil.

any questions?

email me at andylopez@invisiblegardener.com