The Organic Think Tank
- Thread starter NiteTiger
- Start date
My goal growing cannabis is to end up with the largest mass of the most potent and tasty flowers possible which will burn cleanly.
I love minerals in my veggies, I do not care so much for smoking them.
If the addition resulted in 10% more flowers, or in 10% more potent flowers then it'd seem useful, but when the differences are to small to be statistically significant i fail to see a reason to look at them any differently than the other snake oil additives.
lmao
Your organic weed uses the exact same elemental nutrients my hydro weed does.
You can grow kind hydro and schwaggy organic.
That's the problem with these threads...
90% of the posters want to discuss the facts of the matter,
but there is always one or two for whom organics is their religion
and the thread is their holy war...
R
RNDZL
Someone Say HOLY WAR !!!!
I warn you all now "I" am the keeper of the HOLY HAND GRENADE!!!
cannaboy
Member
I do not see organics as a religion as all religion is bollocks!!! I do see it as a life mission to overpower goverments and through them into dispare and to skint the taxman and the billionairs.. Money hungry sheep that do work for them,, Lets make them all go "Hmmmmm" we seem to need to go to work where did all the loot go!!
Yeah I got a super sheep to fly from here and Nuce you whole place dead!!!
This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality. Discussion of this nomination can be found on the talk page. (July 2009)
Organic vegetables at a farmers' market in ArgentinaOrganic foods are made in a way that limits or excludes the use of synthetic materials during production. For the vast majority of human history, agriculture can be described as organic; only during the 20th century was a large supply of new synthetic chemicals introduced to the food supply. This more recent style of production is referred to as "conventional." Under organic production, the use of conventional non-organic pesticides, insecticides and herbicides is greatly restricted and saved as a last resort. However, contrary to popular belief, certain non-organic fertilizers are still used[citation needed]. If livestock are involved, they must be reared without the routine use of antibiotics and without the use of growth hormones, and generally fed a healthy diet.[citation needed] In most countries, organic produce may not be genetically modified. It has been suggested that the application of nanotechnology to food and agriculture is a further technology that needs to be excluded from certified organic food.[1] The Soil Association (UK) has been the first organic certifier to implement a nano-exclusion.[2]
Organic food production is a heavily regulated industry, distinct from private gardening. Currently, the European Union, the United States, Canada, Japan and many other countries require producers to obtain special certification in order to market food as "organic" within their borders. Most certifications allow some chemicals and pesticides to be used[citation needed], so consumers should be aware of the standards for qualifying as "organic" in their respective locales.
Historically, organic farms have been relatively small family-run operations, which is why organic food was once only available in small stores or farmers' markets.[citation needed] However, since the early 1990s organic food production has had growth rates of around 20% a year, far ahead of the rest of the food industry, in both developed and developing nations. As of April 2008, organic food accounts for 1–2% of food sales worldwide.[citation needed]
In 1939, Lord Northbourne coined the term organic farming in his book Look to the Land (1940), out of his conception of "the farm as organism," to describe a holistic, ecologically-balanced approach to farming—in contrast to what he called chemical farming, which relied on "imported fertility" and "cannot be self-sufficient nor an organic whole."[3] This is different from the scientific use of the term "organic," to refer to a class of molecules that contain carbon, especially those involved in the chemistry of life.
Processed organic food usually contains only organic ingredients. If non-organic ingredients are present, at least a certain percentage of the food's total plant and animal ingredients must be organic (95% in the United States[4], Canada,and Australia) and any non-organically produced ingredients are subject to various agricultural requirements. Foods claiming to be organic must be free of artificial food additives, and are often processed with fewer artificial methods, materials and conditions, such as chemical ripening, food irradiation, and genetically modified ingredients. Pesticides are allowed so long as they are not synthetic.
Early consumers interested in organic food would look for non-chemically treated, fresh or minimally processed food. They mostly had to buy directly from growers: "Know your farmer, know your food" was the motto. Personal definitions of what constituted "organic" were developed through firsthand experience: by talking to farmers, seeing farm conditions, and farming activities. Small farms grew vegetables (and raised livestock) using organic farming practices, with or without certification, and the individual consumer monitored. As demand for organic foods continued to increase, high volume sales through mass outlets such as supermarkets rapidly replaced the direct farmer connection. Today there is no limit to organic farm sizes and many large corporate farms currently have an organic division. However, for supermarket consumers, food production is not easily observable, and product labeling, like "certified organic", is relied on. Government regulations and third-party inspectors are looked to for assurance. A "certified organic" label is usually the only way for consumers to know that a processed product is "organic".
The USDA does not inspect organic farmers. [5] Of the 30 third party inspectors 15 of them have been placed under probation after an audit. On April 20th, 2010, the Department of Agriculture said that it would begin enforcing rules requiring the spot testing of organically grown foods for traces of pesticides, after an auditor exposed major gaps in federal oversight of the organic food industry.[6]
[edit] Legal definition
The National Organic Program (run by the USDA) is in charge of the legal definition of organic in the United States and does organic certification.Main article: Organic certification
See also: List of countries with organic agriculture regulation
To be certified organic, products must be grown and manufactured in a manner that adheres to standards set by the country they are sold in:
Australia: Australian Organic Standard and NASAA Organic Standard
Canada: Canada Gazette, Government of Canada
European Union: EU-Eco-regulation
Sweden: KRAV
United Kingdom: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA)
Norway: Debio Organic certification
India: NPOP, (National Program for Organic Production)
Japan: JAS Standards.
United States: National Organic Program (NOP) Standards
[edit] Environmental impact
Several surveys and studies have attempted to examine and compare conventional and organic systems of farming. The general consensus across these surveys[7][8] is that organic farming is less damaging for the following reasons:
Organic farms do not consume or release synthetic pesticides into the environment—some of which have the potential to harm soil, water and local terrestrial and aquatic wildlife.
Organic farms are better than conventional farms at sustaining diverse ecosystems, i.e., populations of plants and insects, as well as animals.
When calculated either per unit area or per unit of yield, organic farms use less energy and produce less waste, e.g., waste such as packaging materials for chemicals.
However, some critics of organic farming methods believe that organic farms require more land to produce the same amount of food as conventional farms (see 'Yield' section, below). They argue that if this is true, organic farms could potentially destroy the rainforests and wipe out many ecosystems.[9][10]
A 2003 investigation by the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs in the UK found, similar to other reports, that organic farming "can produce positive environmental benefits", but that some of the benefits were decreased or lost when comparisons are made on "the basis of unit production rather than area".[11]
[edit] Yield
One study found a 20% smaller yield from organic farms using 50% less fertilizer and 97% less pesticide.[12] Studies comparing yields have had mixed results.[13] Supporters claim that organically managed soil has a higher quality[14] and higher water retention. This may help increase yields for organic farms in drought years.
One study from the Danish Environmental Protection Agency found that, area-for-area, organic farms of potatoes, sugar beet and seed grass produce as little as half the output of conventional farming.[15] Findings like these, and the dependence of organic food on manure from low-yield cattle, has prompted criticism from scientists that organic farming is environmentally unsound and incapable of feeding the world population.[9] Among these critics are Norman Borlaug, father of the "green revolution," and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, who asserts that organic farming practices can at most feed 4 billion people, after expanding cropland dramatically and destroying ecosystems in the process.[10] Michael Pollan, author of The Omnivore's Dilemma, responds to this by pointing out that the average yield of world agriculture is substantially lower than modern sustainable farming yields. Bringing average world yields up to modern organic levels could increase the worlds food supply by 50 % [16].
A 2007 study [17] compiling research from 293 different comparisons into a single study to assess the overall efficiency of the two agricultural systems has concluded that
...organic methods could produce enough food on a global per capita basis to sustain the current human population, and potentially an even larger population, without increasing the agricultural land base. (from the abstract)
The researchers also found that while in developed countries, organic systems on average produce 92% of the yield produced by conventional agriculture, organic systems produce 80% more than conventional farms in developing countries, because the materials needed for organic farming are more accessible than synthetic farming materials to farmers in some poor countries. On the other hand, communities that lack sufficient manure to replenish soils would struggle with organic farming, and the soil would degrade rapidly[18] .
[edit] Energy efficiency
A study of the sustainability of apple production systems showed that in comparing a conventional farming system to an organic method of farming, the organic system is more energy efficient.[19] However, this is debatable due to organic farming's large use of tillage for weed control. Also increased fuel use from incorporating less nutrient dense fertilizers results in higher fuel consumption rates. The general analysis is that organic production methods are usually more energy efficient because they do not use chemically synthesized nitrogen. But they generally consume more petroleum because of the lack of other options for weed control and more intensive soil management practices.[citation needed]
"We can grow DOPE BIO FUEL AND SMOKE ALL DAY!"
Energy efficiency is hard to determine; in the case listed above the author cites a book written in 1976. The true value of efficiency and energy consumption in relation to organic farms has yet to be determined.
[edit] Pesticides and farmers
There are studies detailing the effects and side effects of pesticides upon the health of farm workers.[20] Even when pesticides are used correctly, they still end up in the air and bodies of farm workers. Through these studies, organophosphate pesticides have become associated with acute health problems such as abdominal pain, dizziness, headaches, nausea, vomiting, as well as skin and eye problems.[21] In addition, there have been many other studies that have found pesticide exposure is associated with more severe health problems such as respiratory problems, memory disorders, dermatologic conditions,[22][23] cancer,[24] depression, neurologic deficits,[25][26] miscarriages, and birth defects.[27] Summaries of peer-reviewed research have examined the link between pesticide exposure and neurological outcomes and cancer in organophosphate-exposed workers.[28][29]
Imported fruits and vegetables from South America are more likely to contain high level of pesticides,[30] even pesticides banned for use in the United States.[31] Migratory birds, such as Swainson's hawks, have wintering grounds in Argentina where thousands of them were found dead from monocrotophos insecticide poisoning.[citation needed]
[edit] Pesticide residue
A study published in 2002 showed that "Organically grown foods consistently had about one-third as many residues as conventionally grown foods."[32][33]
Monitoring of pesticide residues in the United States is carried out by the Pesticide Data Program (part of USDA, which was created in 1990. It has since tested over 60 different types of food for over 400 different types of pesticides – with samples collected close to the point of consumption. Their most recent results found in 2005 that:
“ These data indicate that 29.5 percent of all samples tested contained no detectable pesticides [parent compound and metabolite(s) combined], 30 percent contained 1 pesticide, and slightly over 40 percent contained more than 1 pesticide. ”
—USDA, Pesticide Data Program[34]
Several studies corroborate this finding by having found that 25 percent of organic food carries synthetic pesticide residues, in comparison to 77 percent of conventional food.[35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44]
A study published by the National Research Council in 1993 determined that for infants and children, the major source of exposure to pesticides is through diet.[45] A recent study in 2006 measured the levels of organophosphorus pesticide exposure in 23 schoolchildren before and after replacing their diet with organic food. In this study it was found that levels of organophosphorus pesticide exposure dropped dramatically and immediately when the children switched to an organic diet.[46] Food residue limits established by law are set specifically with children in mind and consider a child's lifetime ingestion of each pesticide.[47]
There are controversial data on the health implications of certain pesticides. For example, the herbicide Atrazine has been shown in some experiments to be a teratogen, causing demasculinization in male frogs exposed to small concentrations. Under the effects of Atrazine, male frogs were found to have greatly increased occurrences of either malformed gonads, or testicular gonads which contain non-degenerate eggs.[48] Effects were however significantly reduced in high concentrations, as is consistent with other teratogens affecting the endocrine system, such as estradiol.
Organic farming standards do not allow the use of synthetic pesticides, but they do allow the use of specific pesticides derived from plants. The most common organic pesticides, accepted for restricted use by most organic standards, include Bt, pyrethrum, and rotenone. Rotenone has high toxicity to fish and aquatic creatures, causes Parkinson's disease if injected into rats, and shows other toxicity to mammals.[49]
The United States Environmental Protection Agency and state agencies periodically review the licensing of suspect pesticides, but the process of de-listing is slow. One example of this slow process is exemplified by the pesticide Dichlorvos, or DDVP, which as recently as the year 2006 the EPA proposed its continued sale. The EPA has almost banned this pesticide on several occasions since the 1970s, but it never did so despite considerable evidence that suggests DDVP is not only carcinogenic but dangerous to the human nervous system—especially in children.[50] The EPA "has determined that risks do not exceed levels of concern"[51], a study of longterm exposure to DDVP in rats showed no toxic effects.[52]
[edit] Nutritional value and taste
In April 2009, results from Quality Low Input Food (QLIF), a 5-year integrated study funded by the European Commission,[53] confirmed that "the quality of crops and livestock products from organic and conventional farming systems differs considerably."[54] Specifically, results from a QLIF project studying the effects of organic and low-input farming on crop and livestock nutritional quality "showed that organic food production methods resulted in: (a) higher levels of nutritionally desirable compounds (e.g., vitamins/antioxidants and poly-unsaturated fatty acids such as omega-3 and CLA); (b) lower levels of nutritionally undesirable compounds such as heavy metals, mycotoxins, pesticide residues and glyco-alkaloids in a range of crops and/or milk; (c) a lower risk of faecal Salmonella shedding in pigs."[55] The QLIF study also concludes that "further and more detailed studies are required to provide proof for positive health impacts of organic diets on human and animal health."[56] Alternatively, according to the UK's Food Standards Agency, "Consumers may choose to buy organic fruit, vegetables and meat because they believe them to be more nutritious than other food. However, the balance of current scientific evidence does not support this view."[57] A 12-month systematic review commissioned by the FSA in 2009 and conducted at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine based on 50 year's worth of collected evidence concluded that "there is no good evidence that consumption of organic food is beneficial to health in relation to nutrient content."[58] Other studies have found no proof that organic food offers greater nutritional values, more consumer safety or any distinguishable difference in taste.[59][60][61][62]
Regarding taste, a 2001 study concluded that organic apples were sweeter by blind taste test. Firmness of the apples was also rated higher than those grown conventionally.[63] Limited use of food preservatives may cause faster spoilage of organic foods. Such foods in the stores, on the other hand, are guaranteed of not having been stored for extended amounts of time, still being high in decaying nutrients that food preservatives fail to preserve. Organic food may also potentially have higher amounts of natural biotoxins, like solanine in potatoes[64], as to compensate for the lack of externally applied fungicides and herbicides etc. However, in current studies, there have been no indications of difference in amounts of natural biotoxins between organic and conventional foods.[64]
[edit] Cost
Organic products typically cost 10 to 40% more than similar conventionally produced products.[65] According to the USDA, Americans, on average, spent $1,347 on groceries in 2004[66]; thus switching entirely to organics would raise their cost of groceries $538.80 per year ($44.90/month) and switching to half organics would raise costs by $269.40 ($22.45/month). Processed organic foods vary in price when compared to their conventional counterparts. An Australian study by Choice magazine in 2004 found processed organic foods in supermarkets to be 65% more expensive, but noted this was not consistent. Prices may be higher because organic produce is produced on a smaller scale, and may need to be milled or processed separately. Furthermore, there is an increase in shipping costs from more centralized production in otherwise regional markets. In the case of dairy and eggs, the animal's requirements such as the number of animals that can be raised per acre, or the breed of animal and its feed conversion ratio affects the costs.
[edit] Related movements
Biodynamic agriculture, a method of organic farming, is closely related to the organic food movement.
[edit] Facts and statistics
Organic Seals
International
United States
France
Australia
While organic food accounts for 1–2% of total food sales worldwide, the organic food market is growing rapidly, far ahead of the rest of the food industry, in both developed and developing nations.
World organic food sales jumped from US $23 billion in 2002[67] to $52 billion in 2008.[68]
The world organic market has been growing by 20% a year since the early 1990s, with future growth estimates ranging from 10%–50% annually depending on the country.
[edit] North America
United States:
Organic food is the fastest growing sector of the American food marketplace[69] .
Organic food sales have grown by 17 to 20 percent a year for the past few years[70] while sales of conventional food have grown at only about 2 to 3 percent a year.[71]
In 2003 organic products were available in nearly 20,000 natural food stores and 73% of conventional grocery stores.[72]
Organic products account for 2.6% of total food sales in the year 2005.[73]
Two thirds of organic milk and cream and half of organic cheese and yogurt are sold through conventional supermarkets.[74]
Canada:
Organic food sales surpassed $1 billion in 2006, accounting for 0.9% of food sales in Canada.[75]
Organic food sales by grocery stores were 28% higher in 2006 than in 2005.[75]
British Columbians account for 13% of the Canadian population, but purchased 26% of the organic food sold in Canada in 2006.[76]
[edit] Europe
In the European Union (EU25) 3.9% of the total utilized agricultural area is used for organic production. The countries with the highest proportion of organic land are Austria (11%) and Italy (8.4), followed by Czech Republic and Greece (both 7.2%). The lowest figures are shown for Malta (0.1%), Poland (0.6%) and Ireland (0.8%)[77]
Austria:
11.6% of all farmers produced organically in 2007.[78] The government has created incentives to increase the figure to 20% by 2010.[79]
4.9% of all food products sold in Austrian supermarkets (including discount stores) in 2006 were organic.[80] 8000 different organic products were available in the same year.[81]
Italy:
Since 2005 all school lunches must be organic by law.[82]
Poland:
In 2005 168,000 ha of land were under organic management. 7 percent of Polish consumers buy food that was produced according to the EU-Eco-regulation. The value of the organic market is estimated at 50 million Euros (2006).[83]
UK:
Organic food sales increased from just over £100 million in 1993/94 to £1.21 billion in 2004 (an 11% increase on 2003).[84]
[edit] Caribbean
Cuba:
After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1990, agricultural inputs that had previously been purchased from Eastern bloc countries were no longer available in Cuba, and many Cuban farms converted to organic methods out of necessity.[85] Consequently, organic agriculture is a mainstream practice in Cuba, while it remains an alternative practice in most other countries. Although some products called organic in Cuba would not satisfy certification requirements in other countries (crops may be genetically modified, for example[86][87]), Cuba exports organic citrus and citrus juices to EU markets that meet EU organic standards. Cuba's forced conversion to organic methods may position the country to be a global supplier of organic products.[88]
[edit] Organics Olympiad
Organics Olympiad 2007 awarded gold, silver and bronze medals to countries based on twelve measures of organic leadership.[89]. The gold medal winners were:
Australia with 11.8 million organic hectares.
Mexico with 83,174 organic farms.
Romania with 15.9 million certified wild organic hectares.
China with 135 thousand tonnes of organic wild harvest produce.
Denmark with 1805 organic research publications recorded.
Germany with 69 members of IFOAM.
China with an increase of 1,998,705 organic hectares.
Liechtenstein with 27.9% of its agricultural land certified organic.
Mali with an 8488% annual increase in its organic hectares.
Latvia with an annual 3.01% increase in its organic share of agricultural land.
Liechtenstein with a 10.9% 4-yearly increment of the organic share of its total agriculture.
Switzerland with a per capita annual spend on organic produce of 103 Euros.
[edit] See also
Australian Organic Farming and Gardening Society
China Green Food Development Center
Community-supported agriculture
Ecolabel
Genetically modified food
Kosher foods
Natural foods
Organic clothing
Organic farming
Organic Farming Digest
Risk Management Agency
Seasonal food
Sustainable agriculture
Sustainable food system
Sustainable living
The Future of Food (a documentary film about genetically modified food with a segment on organic food)
Whole foods
Yeah I got a super sheep to fly from here and Nuce you whole place dead!!!
This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality. Discussion of this nomination can be found on the talk page. (July 2009)
Organic vegetables at a farmers' market in ArgentinaOrganic foods are made in a way that limits or excludes the use of synthetic materials during production. For the vast majority of human history, agriculture can be described as organic; only during the 20th century was a large supply of new synthetic chemicals introduced to the food supply. This more recent style of production is referred to as "conventional." Under organic production, the use of conventional non-organic pesticides, insecticides and herbicides is greatly restricted and saved as a last resort. However, contrary to popular belief, certain non-organic fertilizers are still used[citation needed]. If livestock are involved, they must be reared without the routine use of antibiotics and without the use of growth hormones, and generally fed a healthy diet.[citation needed] In most countries, organic produce may not be genetically modified. It has been suggested that the application of nanotechnology to food and agriculture is a further technology that needs to be excluded from certified organic food.[1] The Soil Association (UK) has been the first organic certifier to implement a nano-exclusion.[2]
Organic food production is a heavily regulated industry, distinct from private gardening. Currently, the European Union, the United States, Canada, Japan and many other countries require producers to obtain special certification in order to market food as "organic" within their borders. Most certifications allow some chemicals and pesticides to be used[citation needed], so consumers should be aware of the standards for qualifying as "organic" in their respective locales.
Historically, organic farms have been relatively small family-run operations, which is why organic food was once only available in small stores or farmers' markets.[citation needed] However, since the early 1990s organic food production has had growth rates of around 20% a year, far ahead of the rest of the food industry, in both developed and developing nations. As of April 2008, organic food accounts for 1–2% of food sales worldwide.[citation needed]
In 1939, Lord Northbourne coined the term organic farming in his book Look to the Land (1940), out of his conception of "the farm as organism," to describe a holistic, ecologically-balanced approach to farming—in contrast to what he called chemical farming, which relied on "imported fertility" and "cannot be self-sufficient nor an organic whole."[3] This is different from the scientific use of the term "organic," to refer to a class of molecules that contain carbon, especially those involved in the chemistry of life.
Processed organic food usually contains only organic ingredients. If non-organic ingredients are present, at least a certain percentage of the food's total plant and animal ingredients must be organic (95% in the United States[4], Canada,and Australia) and any non-organically produced ingredients are subject to various agricultural requirements. Foods claiming to be organic must be free of artificial food additives, and are often processed with fewer artificial methods, materials and conditions, such as chemical ripening, food irradiation, and genetically modified ingredients. Pesticides are allowed so long as they are not synthetic.
Early consumers interested in organic food would look for non-chemically treated, fresh or minimally processed food. They mostly had to buy directly from growers: "Know your farmer, know your food" was the motto. Personal definitions of what constituted "organic" were developed through firsthand experience: by talking to farmers, seeing farm conditions, and farming activities. Small farms grew vegetables (and raised livestock) using organic farming practices, with or without certification, and the individual consumer monitored. As demand for organic foods continued to increase, high volume sales through mass outlets such as supermarkets rapidly replaced the direct farmer connection. Today there is no limit to organic farm sizes and many large corporate farms currently have an organic division. However, for supermarket consumers, food production is not easily observable, and product labeling, like "certified organic", is relied on. Government regulations and third-party inspectors are looked to for assurance. A "certified organic" label is usually the only way for consumers to know that a processed product is "organic".
The USDA does not inspect organic farmers. [5] Of the 30 third party inspectors 15 of them have been placed under probation after an audit. On April 20th, 2010, the Department of Agriculture said that it would begin enforcing rules requiring the spot testing of organically grown foods for traces of pesticides, after an auditor exposed major gaps in federal oversight of the organic food industry.[6]
[edit] Legal definition
The National Organic Program (run by the USDA) is in charge of the legal definition of organic in the United States and does organic certification.Main article: Organic certification
See also: List of countries with organic agriculture regulation
To be certified organic, products must be grown and manufactured in a manner that adheres to standards set by the country they are sold in:
Australia: Australian Organic Standard and NASAA Organic Standard
Canada: Canada Gazette, Government of Canada
European Union: EU-Eco-regulation
Sweden: KRAV
United Kingdom: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA)
Norway: Debio Organic certification
India: NPOP, (National Program for Organic Production)
Japan: JAS Standards.
United States: National Organic Program (NOP) Standards
[edit] Environmental impact
Several surveys and studies have attempted to examine and compare conventional and organic systems of farming. The general consensus across these surveys[7][8] is that organic farming is less damaging for the following reasons:
Organic farms do not consume or release synthetic pesticides into the environment—some of which have the potential to harm soil, water and local terrestrial and aquatic wildlife.
Organic farms are better than conventional farms at sustaining diverse ecosystems, i.e., populations of plants and insects, as well as animals.
When calculated either per unit area or per unit of yield, organic farms use less energy and produce less waste, e.g., waste such as packaging materials for chemicals.
However, some critics of organic farming methods believe that organic farms require more land to produce the same amount of food as conventional farms (see 'Yield' section, below). They argue that if this is true, organic farms could potentially destroy the rainforests and wipe out many ecosystems.[9][10]
A 2003 investigation by the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs in the UK found, similar to other reports, that organic farming "can produce positive environmental benefits", but that some of the benefits were decreased or lost when comparisons are made on "the basis of unit production rather than area".[11]
[edit] Yield
One study found a 20% smaller yield from organic farms using 50% less fertilizer and 97% less pesticide.[12] Studies comparing yields have had mixed results.[13] Supporters claim that organically managed soil has a higher quality[14] and higher water retention. This may help increase yields for organic farms in drought years.
One study from the Danish Environmental Protection Agency found that, area-for-area, organic farms of potatoes, sugar beet and seed grass produce as little as half the output of conventional farming.[15] Findings like these, and the dependence of organic food on manure from low-yield cattle, has prompted criticism from scientists that organic farming is environmentally unsound and incapable of feeding the world population.[9] Among these critics are Norman Borlaug, father of the "green revolution," and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, who asserts that organic farming practices can at most feed 4 billion people, after expanding cropland dramatically and destroying ecosystems in the process.[10] Michael Pollan, author of The Omnivore's Dilemma, responds to this by pointing out that the average yield of world agriculture is substantially lower than modern sustainable farming yields. Bringing average world yields up to modern organic levels could increase the worlds food supply by 50 % [16].
A 2007 study [17] compiling research from 293 different comparisons into a single study to assess the overall efficiency of the two agricultural systems has concluded that
...organic methods could produce enough food on a global per capita basis to sustain the current human population, and potentially an even larger population, without increasing the agricultural land base. (from the abstract)
The researchers also found that while in developed countries, organic systems on average produce 92% of the yield produced by conventional agriculture, organic systems produce 80% more than conventional farms in developing countries, because the materials needed for organic farming are more accessible than synthetic farming materials to farmers in some poor countries. On the other hand, communities that lack sufficient manure to replenish soils would struggle with organic farming, and the soil would degrade rapidly[18] .
[edit] Energy efficiency
A study of the sustainability of apple production systems showed that in comparing a conventional farming system to an organic method of farming, the organic system is more energy efficient.[19] However, this is debatable due to organic farming's large use of tillage for weed control. Also increased fuel use from incorporating less nutrient dense fertilizers results in higher fuel consumption rates. The general analysis is that organic production methods are usually more energy efficient because they do not use chemically synthesized nitrogen. But they generally consume more petroleum because of the lack of other options for weed control and more intensive soil management practices.[citation needed]
"We can grow DOPE BIO FUEL AND SMOKE ALL DAY!"
Energy efficiency is hard to determine; in the case listed above the author cites a book written in 1976. The true value of efficiency and energy consumption in relation to organic farms has yet to be determined.
[edit] Pesticides and farmers
There are studies detailing the effects and side effects of pesticides upon the health of farm workers.[20] Even when pesticides are used correctly, they still end up in the air and bodies of farm workers. Through these studies, organophosphate pesticides have become associated with acute health problems such as abdominal pain, dizziness, headaches, nausea, vomiting, as well as skin and eye problems.[21] In addition, there have been many other studies that have found pesticide exposure is associated with more severe health problems such as respiratory problems, memory disorders, dermatologic conditions,[22][23] cancer,[24] depression, neurologic deficits,[25][26] miscarriages, and birth defects.[27] Summaries of peer-reviewed research have examined the link between pesticide exposure and neurological outcomes and cancer in organophosphate-exposed workers.[28][29]
Imported fruits and vegetables from South America are more likely to contain high level of pesticides,[30] even pesticides banned for use in the United States.[31] Migratory birds, such as Swainson's hawks, have wintering grounds in Argentina where thousands of them were found dead from monocrotophos insecticide poisoning.[citation needed]
[edit] Pesticide residue
A study published in 2002 showed that "Organically grown foods consistently had about one-third as many residues as conventionally grown foods."[32][33]
Monitoring of pesticide residues in the United States is carried out by the Pesticide Data Program (part of USDA, which was created in 1990. It has since tested over 60 different types of food for over 400 different types of pesticides – with samples collected close to the point of consumption. Their most recent results found in 2005 that:
“ These data indicate that 29.5 percent of all samples tested contained no detectable pesticides [parent compound and metabolite(s) combined], 30 percent contained 1 pesticide, and slightly over 40 percent contained more than 1 pesticide. ”
—USDA, Pesticide Data Program[34]
Several studies corroborate this finding by having found that 25 percent of organic food carries synthetic pesticide residues, in comparison to 77 percent of conventional food.[35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44]
A study published by the National Research Council in 1993 determined that for infants and children, the major source of exposure to pesticides is through diet.[45] A recent study in 2006 measured the levels of organophosphorus pesticide exposure in 23 schoolchildren before and after replacing their diet with organic food. In this study it was found that levels of organophosphorus pesticide exposure dropped dramatically and immediately when the children switched to an organic diet.[46] Food residue limits established by law are set specifically with children in mind and consider a child's lifetime ingestion of each pesticide.[47]
There are controversial data on the health implications of certain pesticides. For example, the herbicide Atrazine has been shown in some experiments to be a teratogen, causing demasculinization in male frogs exposed to small concentrations. Under the effects of Atrazine, male frogs were found to have greatly increased occurrences of either malformed gonads, or testicular gonads which contain non-degenerate eggs.[48] Effects were however significantly reduced in high concentrations, as is consistent with other teratogens affecting the endocrine system, such as estradiol.
Organic farming standards do not allow the use of synthetic pesticides, but they do allow the use of specific pesticides derived from plants. The most common organic pesticides, accepted for restricted use by most organic standards, include Bt, pyrethrum, and rotenone. Rotenone has high toxicity to fish and aquatic creatures, causes Parkinson's disease if injected into rats, and shows other toxicity to mammals.[49]
The United States Environmental Protection Agency and state agencies periodically review the licensing of suspect pesticides, but the process of de-listing is slow. One example of this slow process is exemplified by the pesticide Dichlorvos, or DDVP, which as recently as the year 2006 the EPA proposed its continued sale. The EPA has almost banned this pesticide on several occasions since the 1970s, but it never did so despite considerable evidence that suggests DDVP is not only carcinogenic but dangerous to the human nervous system—especially in children.[50] The EPA "has determined that risks do not exceed levels of concern"[51], a study of longterm exposure to DDVP in rats showed no toxic effects.[52]
[edit] Nutritional value and taste
In April 2009, results from Quality Low Input Food (QLIF), a 5-year integrated study funded by the European Commission,[53] confirmed that "the quality of crops and livestock products from organic and conventional farming systems differs considerably."[54] Specifically, results from a QLIF project studying the effects of organic and low-input farming on crop and livestock nutritional quality "showed that organic food production methods resulted in: (a) higher levels of nutritionally desirable compounds (e.g., vitamins/antioxidants and poly-unsaturated fatty acids such as omega-3 and CLA); (b) lower levels of nutritionally undesirable compounds such as heavy metals, mycotoxins, pesticide residues and glyco-alkaloids in a range of crops and/or milk; (c) a lower risk of faecal Salmonella shedding in pigs."[55] The QLIF study also concludes that "further and more detailed studies are required to provide proof for positive health impacts of organic diets on human and animal health."[56] Alternatively, according to the UK's Food Standards Agency, "Consumers may choose to buy organic fruit, vegetables and meat because they believe them to be more nutritious than other food. However, the balance of current scientific evidence does not support this view."[57] A 12-month systematic review commissioned by the FSA in 2009 and conducted at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine based on 50 year's worth of collected evidence concluded that "there is no good evidence that consumption of organic food is beneficial to health in relation to nutrient content."[58] Other studies have found no proof that organic food offers greater nutritional values, more consumer safety or any distinguishable difference in taste.[59][60][61][62]
Regarding taste, a 2001 study concluded that organic apples were sweeter by blind taste test. Firmness of the apples was also rated higher than those grown conventionally.[63] Limited use of food preservatives may cause faster spoilage of organic foods. Such foods in the stores, on the other hand, are guaranteed of not having been stored for extended amounts of time, still being high in decaying nutrients that food preservatives fail to preserve. Organic food may also potentially have higher amounts of natural biotoxins, like solanine in potatoes[64], as to compensate for the lack of externally applied fungicides and herbicides etc. However, in current studies, there have been no indications of difference in amounts of natural biotoxins between organic and conventional foods.[64]
[edit] Cost
Organic products typically cost 10 to 40% more than similar conventionally produced products.[65] According to the USDA, Americans, on average, spent $1,347 on groceries in 2004[66]; thus switching entirely to organics would raise their cost of groceries $538.80 per year ($44.90/month) and switching to half organics would raise costs by $269.40 ($22.45/month). Processed organic foods vary in price when compared to their conventional counterparts. An Australian study by Choice magazine in 2004 found processed organic foods in supermarkets to be 65% more expensive, but noted this was not consistent. Prices may be higher because organic produce is produced on a smaller scale, and may need to be milled or processed separately. Furthermore, there is an increase in shipping costs from more centralized production in otherwise regional markets. In the case of dairy and eggs, the animal's requirements such as the number of animals that can be raised per acre, or the breed of animal and its feed conversion ratio affects the costs.
[edit] Related movements
Biodynamic agriculture, a method of organic farming, is closely related to the organic food movement.
[edit] Facts and statistics
Organic Seals
International
United States
France
Australia
While organic food accounts for 1–2% of total food sales worldwide, the organic food market is growing rapidly, far ahead of the rest of the food industry, in both developed and developing nations.
World organic food sales jumped from US $23 billion in 2002[67] to $52 billion in 2008.[68]
The world organic market has been growing by 20% a year since the early 1990s, with future growth estimates ranging from 10%–50% annually depending on the country.
[edit] North America
United States:
Organic food is the fastest growing sector of the American food marketplace[69] .
Organic food sales have grown by 17 to 20 percent a year for the past few years[70] while sales of conventional food have grown at only about 2 to 3 percent a year.[71]
In 2003 organic products were available in nearly 20,000 natural food stores and 73% of conventional grocery stores.[72]
Organic products account for 2.6% of total food sales in the year 2005.[73]
Two thirds of organic milk and cream and half of organic cheese and yogurt are sold through conventional supermarkets.[74]
Canada:
Organic food sales surpassed $1 billion in 2006, accounting for 0.9% of food sales in Canada.[75]
Organic food sales by grocery stores were 28% higher in 2006 than in 2005.[75]
British Columbians account for 13% of the Canadian population, but purchased 26% of the organic food sold in Canada in 2006.[76]
[edit] Europe
In the European Union (EU25) 3.9% of the total utilized agricultural area is used for organic production. The countries with the highest proportion of organic land are Austria (11%) and Italy (8.4), followed by Czech Republic and Greece (both 7.2%). The lowest figures are shown for Malta (0.1%), Poland (0.6%) and Ireland (0.8%)[77]
Austria:
11.6% of all farmers produced organically in 2007.[78] The government has created incentives to increase the figure to 20% by 2010.[79]
4.9% of all food products sold in Austrian supermarkets (including discount stores) in 2006 were organic.[80] 8000 different organic products were available in the same year.[81]
Italy:
Since 2005 all school lunches must be organic by law.[82]
Poland:
In 2005 168,000 ha of land were under organic management. 7 percent of Polish consumers buy food that was produced according to the EU-Eco-regulation. The value of the organic market is estimated at 50 million Euros (2006).[83]
UK:
Organic food sales increased from just over £100 million in 1993/94 to £1.21 billion in 2004 (an 11% increase on 2003).[84]
[edit] Caribbean
Cuba:
After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1990, agricultural inputs that had previously been purchased from Eastern bloc countries were no longer available in Cuba, and many Cuban farms converted to organic methods out of necessity.[85] Consequently, organic agriculture is a mainstream practice in Cuba, while it remains an alternative practice in most other countries. Although some products called organic in Cuba would not satisfy certification requirements in other countries (crops may be genetically modified, for example[86][87]), Cuba exports organic citrus and citrus juices to EU markets that meet EU organic standards. Cuba's forced conversion to organic methods may position the country to be a global supplier of organic products.[88]
[edit] Organics Olympiad
Organics Olympiad 2007 awarded gold, silver and bronze medals to countries based on twelve measures of organic leadership.[89]. The gold medal winners were:
Australia with 11.8 million organic hectares.
Mexico with 83,174 organic farms.
Romania with 15.9 million certified wild organic hectares.
China with 135 thousand tonnes of organic wild harvest produce.
Denmark with 1805 organic research publications recorded.
Germany with 69 members of IFOAM.
China with an increase of 1,998,705 organic hectares.
Liechtenstein with 27.9% of its agricultural land certified organic.
Mali with an 8488% annual increase in its organic hectares.
Latvia with an annual 3.01% increase in its organic share of agricultural land.
Liechtenstein with a 10.9% 4-yearly increment of the organic share of its total agriculture.
Switzerland with a per capita annual spend on organic produce of 103 Euros.
[edit] See also
Australian Organic Farming and Gardening Society
China Green Food Development Center
Community-supported agriculture
Ecolabel
Genetically modified food
Kosher foods
Natural foods
Organic clothing
Organic farming
Organic Farming Digest
Risk Management Agency
Seasonal food
Sustainable agriculture
Sustainable food system
Sustainable living
The Future of Food (a documentary film about genetically modified food with a segment on organic food)
Whole foods
R
RNDZL
why cant we just keep the focus on various ways to grow some nice flowers
once we gots the nice flowers we can smoke em and go to the den and argue about something non canna related k?
once we gots the nice flowers we can smoke em and go to the den and argue about something non canna related k?
TheBudFather
Active member
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXGqJbFZzCo&playnext_from=TL&videos=ZH6mlGESJpY
Organic is quality... Happy plants eating natural food... Yummy.
Organic is quality... Happy plants eating natural food... Yummy.
cannaboy
Member
I didn't want to have to post this 1 but hes a dar gan gardener!!!
I wanted to tell lazy that 1 leek will feed the starving and its big enough to shove in anyones gob!!
RESPECT!!!
imho, the plant takes up the nutrients in exactly the same way, so why does it matter how they are provided?
I can understand that "maybe" soil/organic might have other trace minerals or amendments, but just don't see how the resulting product will be any different if done properly with chem or organics..
i'm just sayin..
I can understand that "maybe" soil/organic might have other trace minerals or amendments, but just don't see how the resulting product will be any different if done properly with chem or organics..
i'm just sayin..
cannaboy
Member
In the United States, the National Organic Program (NOP) is the federal regulatory framework governing organic food. It was made law in October 2002,[citation needed] and is administered by the Department of Agriculture (USDA). The Organic Food Production Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C.A. § 6501-22) required that the USDA develop national standards for organic products.[1] The regulations (7 C.F.R. Part 205) are enforced by the USDA through the National Organic Program under this act.
It covers in detail all aspects of food production, processing, delivery and retail sale. Under the NOP, farmers and food processors who wish to use the word "organic" in reference to their businesses and products, must be certified organic. Producers with annual sales not exceeding $5,000 US are exempted[2][citation needed] and do not require certification (however, they must still follow NOP standards, including keeping records and submitting to a production audit if requested, and cannot be the term certified organic). A USDA Organic seal identifies products with at least 95% organic ingredients.[citation needed]
There are currently 56 U.S. domestic certification agencies accredited by the USDA, including Organic Crop Improvement Association, CCOF, Quality Assurance International (QAI), and Indiana Certified Organic. There are also 41 accredited foreign agencies that offer organic certification services.[3]
The NOP covers fresh and processed agricultural food products, including crops and livestock. It does not cover non-food products that may be sold as organic, including natural fibers (eg: organic cotton), and health and beauty products (eg: organic shampoo).
The National Organic Program has fewer than twelve total employees.[4] On February 4, 2008, it announced that it was reorganizing into three divisions: Standards Development and Review; Accreditation, Auditing, and Training; and Compliance and Enforcement.[5] The latter position remains unfilled.
In August 2008 the NOP announced that 15 of 30 federally accredited organic certifiers had been placed on probation for various violations of USDA organic standards.[4]
[edit] References
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or sometimes USEPA) is an agency of the federal government of the United States charged to protect human health and the environment, by writing and enforcing regulations based on laws passed by Congress. The EPA was proposed by President Richard Nixon and began operation on December 2, 1970, when its establishment was passed by Congress, and signed into law by President Nixon, and has since been chiefly responsible for the environmental policy of the United States.[2] It is led by its Administrator, who is appointed by the President of the United States. The EPA is not a Cabinet agency, but the Administrator is normally given cabinet rank. Lisa P. Jackson is the current Administrator. The agency has approximately 18,000 full-time employees.[3]The EPA employs 17,000 people in headquarters program offices, 10 regional offices, and 27 laboratories across the country. More than half of its staff are engineers, scientists, and environmental protection specialists; other groups include legal, public affairs, financial, and computer specialists.
The agency conducts environmental assessment, research, and education. It has the primary responsibility for setting and enforcing national standards under a variety of environmental laws, in consultation with state, tribal, and local governments. It delegates some permitting, monitoring, and enforcement responsibility to U.S. states and Native American tribes. EPA enforcement powers include fines, sanctions, and other measures.
The agency also works with industries and all levels of government in a wide variety of voluntary pollution prevention programs and energy conservation efforts.
[edit] History
On July 9, 1970, citing rising concerns over environmental protection and conservation, President Richard Nixon transmitted Reorganization Plan No. 3 to the United States Congress by executive order, creating the EPA as a single, independent agency from a number of smaller arms of different federal agencies. Prior to the establishment of the EPA, the federal government was not structured to comprehensively regulate the pollutants which harm human health and degrade the environment. The EPA was assigned the task of repairing the damage already done to the natural environment and to establish new criteria to guide Americans in making a cleaner, safer America.
1-MCP’s mode of action is via a preferential attachment to the ethylene receptor, thereby blocking the effects of both endogenous and exogenous ethylene. It is applied in storage facilities and transit containers to slow down the ripening process and the production of the ethylene in fruit. Ethylene agent is not useful for ripe postharvests. The method of prolonging produce lifetime in this way was approved by the EU in 2005.
1-MCP can be combined with the Controlled Atmosphere technology which has been standard industry practice for the past 50 years.[1]
[edit] Controversies
[edit] Health concerns
The method came under scrutiny by the press during late 2005, and it was revealed the method is occasionally used to inhibit ripening of fruit by even a year, causing consumers to purchase year-old fruit without being aware of it. Fruits which have been treated with 1-MCP do not underlie any labeling regulations and are therefore non distinguishable from non-treated products.[2]
As of 2006, retailers are split on whether this quality enhancer should be used. In a True Food Network publication of Greenpeace,[3] Apple & Pear Australia business manager Tony Russell claimed that prolonged lifetime of produce is necessary to deliver edible fruit during the whole year, and that these fruits are still healthy. He was countered by Sydney Postharvest Laboratory director Dr Stephen Morris in that Vitamin C and antioxidant levels may still decline, a concern also shared by others in the industry.
There are neither absolute certitude nor extensive studies about the health risk of using this product which is destined for a mass distribution scale. It is perceived by Susan Kegley, a senior scientist at the San Francisco-based Pesticide Action Network North America, as beeing “likely to be very low-risk to consumers”. Other scientists see 1-MCP as "most likely harmless to humans". [4]
As of 2009, this product is allowed in 26 countries: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Costa Rica, the European Union, France, Germany, Guatemala, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Mexico, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom and the United States. [5]
[edit] Supply effects
A business concern has been raised by Karl Schmitz, General Manager of the Federation of Producer Organisations for Fruit & Vegetables in Germany, as these chemicals cause oversupply issues in some markets and needlessly reducing the profits of growers as the demand of fresh fruits is reduced. Figures are at the same time showing that consumers don't necessarily purchase more fruits if they'd become cheaper.
Genetic engineering, recombinant DNA technology, genetic modification/manipulation (GM), and gene splicing are terms that apply to the direct manipulation of an organism's genes.[1] Genetic engineering is different from traditional breeding, where the organism's genes are manipulated indirectly. Genetic engineering uses the techniques of molecular cloning and transformation to alter the structure and characteristics of genes directly. Genetic engineering techniques have been applied to various industries, principally medicine and agriculture, with some success. Examples include production of synthetic human insulin using modified bacteria, production of erythropoietin in hamster ovary cells, the production of new types of experimental mice such as the oncomouse (cancer mouse) for research purposes, and the production of new strains of crop plants with beneficial qualities.
The term "genetic engineering" was coined by Jack Williamson in his science fiction novel Dragon's Island, published in 1951,[2] one year before DNA's role in heredity was confirmed by Alfred Hershey and Martha Chase,[3] and two years before James Watson and Francis Crick showed that the DNA molecule has a double-helix structure.
Genetic engineering is accomplished by a number of methods. Essentially, the process has five main steps.
1.Isolation of the genes of interest
2.Incorporation of these genes into a transfer vector
3.Transfer of the vector to the organism to be modified
4.Transformation of the cells of the organism
5.Selection of the genetically modified organism (GMO) from those that have not been successfully modified
Isolation is achieved by identifying the gene of interest that the scientist wishes to insert into the organism, usually using existing knowledge of the various functions of genes. DNA information can be obtained from cDNA or gDNA libraries, and amplified using PCR techniques. If necessary, i.e. for insertion of eukaryotic genomic DNA into prokaryotes, further modification may be carried out such as removal of introns or ligating prokaryotic promoters.
Insertion of a gene into a vector such as a plasmid can be done once the gene of interest is isolated. Other vectors can also be used, such as viral vectors, bacterial conjugation, liposomes, or even direct insertion using a gene gun. Restriction enzymes and ligases are of great use in this crucial step if it is being inserted into prokaryotic or viral vectors. Daniel Nathans, Werner Arber and Hamilton Smith received the 1978 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for their isolation of restriction endonucleases.
Once the vector is obtained, it can be used to transform the target organism. Depending on the vector used, it can be complex or simple. For example, using raw DNA with gene guns is a fairly straightforward process but with low success rates, where the DNA is coated with molecules such as gold and fired directly into a cell. Other more complex methods, such as bacterial transformation or using viruses as vectors have higher success rates.
After transformation, the GMO can be selected from those that have failed to take up the vector in various ways. One method is screening with DNA probes that can stick to the gene of interest that was supposed to have been transplanted. Another is to package genes conferring resistance to certain chemicals such as antibiotics or herbicides into the vector. This chemical is then applied ensuring that only those cells that have taken up the vector will survive.
Applications
Molecular biologists have discovered many enzymes which change the structure of DNA in living organisms. Some of these enzymes can cut and join strands of DNA. Using such enzymes, scientists learned to cut specific genes from DNA and to build customized DNA using these genes. They also learned about vectors, strands of DNA such as viruses, which can infect a cell and insert themselves into its DNA.[4]
The first genetically engineered medicine was synthetic human insulin, approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration in 1982. Another early application of genetic engineering was to create human growth hormone as replacement for a compound that was previously extracted from human cadavers. In 1987 the FDA approved the first genetically engineered vaccine for humans, for hepatitis B. Since these early uses of the technology in medicine, the use of GM has gradually expanded to supply a number of other drugs and vaccines.
One of the best-known applications of genetic engineering is the creation of GMOs for food use (genetically modified foods); such foods resist insect pests, bacterial or fungal infection, resist herbicides to improve yield, have longer freshness than otherwise, or have superior nutritional value.
In materials science, a genetically modified virus has been used to construct a more environmentally friendly lithium-ion battery.[5][6]
A new type of slowly growing artform is being established via gene engineering and manipulation. BioArt, an artistic form, uses gene engineering to create new art forms that both educate the public about genetics and create living artforms.
Genetic engineering and research
Although there has been a revolution in the biological sciences in the past twenty years, there is still a great deal that remains to be discovered. The completion of the sequencing of the human genome, as well as the genomes of most agriculturally and scientifically important animals and plants, has increased the possibilities of genetic research immeasurably. Expedient and inexpensive access to comprehensive genetic data has become a reality with billions of sequenced nucleotides already online and annotated.
Knockout miceLoss of function experiments, such as in a gene knockout experiment, in which an organism is engineered to lack the activity of one or more genes. A knockout experiment involves the creation and manipulation of a DNA construct in vitro, which, in a simple knockout, consists of a copy of the desired gene, which has been altered such that it is non-functional. Embryonic stem cells incorporate the altered gene, which replaces the already present functional copy. These stem cells are injected into blastocysts, which are implanted into surrogate mothers. This allows the experimenter to analyze the defects caused by this mutation and thereby determine the role of particular genes. It is used especially frequently in developmental biology. Another method, useful in organisms such as Drosophila (fruitfly), is to induce mutations in a large population and then screen the progeny for the desired mutation. A similar process can be used in both plants and prokaryotes.
Gain of function experiments, the logical counterpart of knockouts. These are sometimes performed in conjunction with knockout experiments to more finely establish the function of the desired gene. The process is much the same as that in knockout engineering, except that the construct is designed to increase the function of the gene, usually by providing extra copies of the gene or inducing synthesis of the protein more frequently.
Tracking experiments, which seek to gain information about the localization and interaction of the desired protein. One way to do this is to replace the wild-type gene with a 'fusion' gene, which is a juxtaposition of the wild-type gene with a reporting element such as Green Fluorescent Protein (GFP) that will allow easy visualization of the products of the genetic modification. While this is a useful technique, the manipulation can destroy the function of the gene, creating secondary effects and possibly calling into question the results of the experiment. More sophisticated techniques are now in development that can track protein products without mitigating their function, such as the addition of small sequences that will serve as binding motifs to monoclonal antibodies.
Expression studies aim to discover where and when specific proteins are produced. In these experiments, the DNA sequence before the DNA that codes for a protein, known as a gene's promoter, is reintroduced into an organism with the protein coding region replaced by a reporter gene such as GFP or an enzyme that catalyzes the production of a dye. Thus the time and place where a particular protein is produced can be observed. Expression studies can be taken a step further by altering the promoter to find which pieces are crucial for the proper expression of the gene and are actually bound by transcription factor proteins; this process is known as promoter bashing.
Human genetic engineering
See also: Human genetic engineering
Human genetic engineering can be used to treat genetic disease, but there is a difference between treating the disease in an individual and changing the genome that gets passed down to that person's descendants (germ-line genetic engineering).[7]
Human genetic engineering has the potential to change human beings' appearance, adaptability, intelligence, character, and behavior. It may potentially be used in creating more dramatic changes in humans.[citation needed] There are many unresolved ethical issues and concerns surrounding this technology, and it remains a controversial topic.
Forms
Genetic engineering can enable the transport of genes between unrelated (transgenesis) or related (cisgenesis) organisms that would otherwise be unable to occur naturally, due to differences in anatomy or the incorrespondence between the DNA structures.[8] This form of genetic engineering can produce unpredictable results to the genome of the organisms, and can be related to those mutation processes.[8]
Advantages
The modification of the DNA structures of agricultural crops can increase the growth rates and even resistance to different diseases caused by pathogens and parasites.[8] This is extremely beneficial as it can greatly increase the production of food sources with the usage of fewer resources that would be required to host the world's growing populations. These modified crops would also reduce the usage of chemicals, such as fertilizers and pesticides, and therefore decrease the severity and frequency of the damages produced by these chemical pollution.[8] Domesticated animals can undergo the same mechanism. Genetic engineering can also increase the genetic diversity of species populations, especially those that are classified as being endangered. Increase in genetic diversity would enabled these organisms to evolve more efficiently that would allow better adaptation to the ecosystems they inhabit. It would also reduce the vulnerability of certain diseases produced by pathogens, as well as decrease the risk of inbreeding that would produce infertile youths. Genetic engineering can be performed to increase to the efficiency of the ecosystem services provided by the other organisms.[9] For example, the modification of a tree's genes could perhaps increase the root systems of these organisms reduce the damage produced by flood phenomena through flood mitigation.
It covers in detail all aspects of food production, processing, delivery and retail sale. Under the NOP, farmers and food processors who wish to use the word "organic" in reference to their businesses and products, must be certified organic. Producers with annual sales not exceeding $5,000 US are exempted[2][citation needed] and do not require certification (however, they must still follow NOP standards, including keeping records and submitting to a production audit if requested, and cannot be the term certified organic). A USDA Organic seal identifies products with at least 95% organic ingredients.[citation needed]
There are currently 56 U.S. domestic certification agencies accredited by the USDA, including Organic Crop Improvement Association, CCOF, Quality Assurance International (QAI), and Indiana Certified Organic. There are also 41 accredited foreign agencies that offer organic certification services.[3]
The NOP covers fresh and processed agricultural food products, including crops and livestock. It does not cover non-food products that may be sold as organic, including natural fibers (eg: organic cotton), and health and beauty products (eg: organic shampoo).
The National Organic Program has fewer than twelve total employees.[4] On February 4, 2008, it announced that it was reorganizing into three divisions: Standards Development and Review; Accreditation, Auditing, and Training; and Compliance and Enforcement.[5] The latter position remains unfilled.
In August 2008 the NOP announced that 15 of 30 federally accredited organic certifiers had been placed on probation for various violations of USDA organic standards.[4]
[edit] References
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or sometimes USEPA) is an agency of the federal government of the United States charged to protect human health and the environment, by writing and enforcing regulations based on laws passed by Congress. The EPA was proposed by President Richard Nixon and began operation on December 2, 1970, when its establishment was passed by Congress, and signed into law by President Nixon, and has since been chiefly responsible for the environmental policy of the United States.[2] It is led by its Administrator, who is appointed by the President of the United States. The EPA is not a Cabinet agency, but the Administrator is normally given cabinet rank. Lisa P. Jackson is the current Administrator. The agency has approximately 18,000 full-time employees.[3]The EPA employs 17,000 people in headquarters program offices, 10 regional offices, and 27 laboratories across the country. More than half of its staff are engineers, scientists, and environmental protection specialists; other groups include legal, public affairs, financial, and computer specialists.
The agency conducts environmental assessment, research, and education. It has the primary responsibility for setting and enforcing national standards under a variety of environmental laws, in consultation with state, tribal, and local governments. It delegates some permitting, monitoring, and enforcement responsibility to U.S. states and Native American tribes. EPA enforcement powers include fines, sanctions, and other measures.
The agency also works with industries and all levels of government in a wide variety of voluntary pollution prevention programs and energy conservation efforts.
[edit] History
On July 9, 1970, citing rising concerns over environmental protection and conservation, President Richard Nixon transmitted Reorganization Plan No. 3 to the United States Congress by executive order, creating the EPA as a single, independent agency from a number of smaller arms of different federal agencies. Prior to the establishment of the EPA, the federal government was not structured to comprehensively regulate the pollutants which harm human health and degrade the environment. The EPA was assigned the task of repairing the damage already done to the natural environment and to establish new criteria to guide Americans in making a cleaner, safer America.
1-MCP’s mode of action is via a preferential attachment to the ethylene receptor, thereby blocking the effects of both endogenous and exogenous ethylene. It is applied in storage facilities and transit containers to slow down the ripening process and the production of the ethylene in fruit. Ethylene agent is not useful for ripe postharvests. The method of prolonging produce lifetime in this way was approved by the EU in 2005.
1-MCP can be combined with the Controlled Atmosphere technology which has been standard industry practice for the past 50 years.[1]
[edit] Controversies
[edit] Health concerns
The method came under scrutiny by the press during late 2005, and it was revealed the method is occasionally used to inhibit ripening of fruit by even a year, causing consumers to purchase year-old fruit without being aware of it. Fruits which have been treated with 1-MCP do not underlie any labeling regulations and are therefore non distinguishable from non-treated products.[2]
As of 2006, retailers are split on whether this quality enhancer should be used. In a True Food Network publication of Greenpeace,[3] Apple & Pear Australia business manager Tony Russell claimed that prolonged lifetime of produce is necessary to deliver edible fruit during the whole year, and that these fruits are still healthy. He was countered by Sydney Postharvest Laboratory director Dr Stephen Morris in that Vitamin C and antioxidant levels may still decline, a concern also shared by others in the industry.
There are neither absolute certitude nor extensive studies about the health risk of using this product which is destined for a mass distribution scale. It is perceived by Susan Kegley, a senior scientist at the San Francisco-based Pesticide Action Network North America, as beeing “likely to be very low-risk to consumers”. Other scientists see 1-MCP as "most likely harmless to humans". [4]
As of 2009, this product is allowed in 26 countries: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Costa Rica, the European Union, France, Germany, Guatemala, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Mexico, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom and the United States. [5]
[edit] Supply effects
A business concern has been raised by Karl Schmitz, General Manager of the Federation of Producer Organisations for Fruit & Vegetables in Germany, as these chemicals cause oversupply issues in some markets and needlessly reducing the profits of growers as the demand of fresh fruits is reduced. Figures are at the same time showing that consumers don't necessarily purchase more fruits if they'd become cheaper.
Genetic engineering, recombinant DNA technology, genetic modification/manipulation (GM), and gene splicing are terms that apply to the direct manipulation of an organism's genes.[1] Genetic engineering is different from traditional breeding, where the organism's genes are manipulated indirectly. Genetic engineering uses the techniques of molecular cloning and transformation to alter the structure and characteristics of genes directly. Genetic engineering techniques have been applied to various industries, principally medicine and agriculture, with some success. Examples include production of synthetic human insulin using modified bacteria, production of erythropoietin in hamster ovary cells, the production of new types of experimental mice such as the oncomouse (cancer mouse) for research purposes, and the production of new strains of crop plants with beneficial qualities.
The term "genetic engineering" was coined by Jack Williamson in his science fiction novel Dragon's Island, published in 1951,[2] one year before DNA's role in heredity was confirmed by Alfred Hershey and Martha Chase,[3] and two years before James Watson and Francis Crick showed that the DNA molecule has a double-helix structure.
Genetic engineering is accomplished by a number of methods. Essentially, the process has five main steps.
1.Isolation of the genes of interest
2.Incorporation of these genes into a transfer vector
3.Transfer of the vector to the organism to be modified
4.Transformation of the cells of the organism
5.Selection of the genetically modified organism (GMO) from those that have not been successfully modified
Isolation is achieved by identifying the gene of interest that the scientist wishes to insert into the organism, usually using existing knowledge of the various functions of genes. DNA information can be obtained from cDNA or gDNA libraries, and amplified using PCR techniques. If necessary, i.e. for insertion of eukaryotic genomic DNA into prokaryotes, further modification may be carried out such as removal of introns or ligating prokaryotic promoters.
Insertion of a gene into a vector such as a plasmid can be done once the gene of interest is isolated. Other vectors can also be used, such as viral vectors, bacterial conjugation, liposomes, or even direct insertion using a gene gun. Restriction enzymes and ligases are of great use in this crucial step if it is being inserted into prokaryotic or viral vectors. Daniel Nathans, Werner Arber and Hamilton Smith received the 1978 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for their isolation of restriction endonucleases.
Once the vector is obtained, it can be used to transform the target organism. Depending on the vector used, it can be complex or simple. For example, using raw DNA with gene guns is a fairly straightforward process but with low success rates, where the DNA is coated with molecules such as gold and fired directly into a cell. Other more complex methods, such as bacterial transformation or using viruses as vectors have higher success rates.
After transformation, the GMO can be selected from those that have failed to take up the vector in various ways. One method is screening with DNA probes that can stick to the gene of interest that was supposed to have been transplanted. Another is to package genes conferring resistance to certain chemicals such as antibiotics or herbicides into the vector. This chemical is then applied ensuring that only those cells that have taken up the vector will survive.
Applications
Molecular biologists have discovered many enzymes which change the structure of DNA in living organisms. Some of these enzymes can cut and join strands of DNA. Using such enzymes, scientists learned to cut specific genes from DNA and to build customized DNA using these genes. They also learned about vectors, strands of DNA such as viruses, which can infect a cell and insert themselves into its DNA.[4]
The first genetically engineered medicine was synthetic human insulin, approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration in 1982. Another early application of genetic engineering was to create human growth hormone as replacement for a compound that was previously extracted from human cadavers. In 1987 the FDA approved the first genetically engineered vaccine for humans, for hepatitis B. Since these early uses of the technology in medicine, the use of GM has gradually expanded to supply a number of other drugs and vaccines.
One of the best-known applications of genetic engineering is the creation of GMOs for food use (genetically modified foods); such foods resist insect pests, bacterial or fungal infection, resist herbicides to improve yield, have longer freshness than otherwise, or have superior nutritional value.
In materials science, a genetically modified virus has been used to construct a more environmentally friendly lithium-ion battery.[5][6]
A new type of slowly growing artform is being established via gene engineering and manipulation. BioArt, an artistic form, uses gene engineering to create new art forms that both educate the public about genetics and create living artforms.
Genetic engineering and research
Although there has been a revolution in the biological sciences in the past twenty years, there is still a great deal that remains to be discovered. The completion of the sequencing of the human genome, as well as the genomes of most agriculturally and scientifically important animals and plants, has increased the possibilities of genetic research immeasurably. Expedient and inexpensive access to comprehensive genetic data has become a reality with billions of sequenced nucleotides already online and annotated.
Knockout miceLoss of function experiments, such as in a gene knockout experiment, in which an organism is engineered to lack the activity of one or more genes. A knockout experiment involves the creation and manipulation of a DNA construct in vitro, which, in a simple knockout, consists of a copy of the desired gene, which has been altered such that it is non-functional. Embryonic stem cells incorporate the altered gene, which replaces the already present functional copy. These stem cells are injected into blastocysts, which are implanted into surrogate mothers. This allows the experimenter to analyze the defects caused by this mutation and thereby determine the role of particular genes. It is used especially frequently in developmental biology. Another method, useful in organisms such as Drosophila (fruitfly), is to induce mutations in a large population and then screen the progeny for the desired mutation. A similar process can be used in both plants and prokaryotes.
Gain of function experiments, the logical counterpart of knockouts. These are sometimes performed in conjunction with knockout experiments to more finely establish the function of the desired gene. The process is much the same as that in knockout engineering, except that the construct is designed to increase the function of the gene, usually by providing extra copies of the gene or inducing synthesis of the protein more frequently.
Tracking experiments, which seek to gain information about the localization and interaction of the desired protein. One way to do this is to replace the wild-type gene with a 'fusion' gene, which is a juxtaposition of the wild-type gene with a reporting element such as Green Fluorescent Protein (GFP) that will allow easy visualization of the products of the genetic modification. While this is a useful technique, the manipulation can destroy the function of the gene, creating secondary effects and possibly calling into question the results of the experiment. More sophisticated techniques are now in development that can track protein products without mitigating their function, such as the addition of small sequences that will serve as binding motifs to monoclonal antibodies.
Expression studies aim to discover where and when specific proteins are produced. In these experiments, the DNA sequence before the DNA that codes for a protein, known as a gene's promoter, is reintroduced into an organism with the protein coding region replaced by a reporter gene such as GFP or an enzyme that catalyzes the production of a dye. Thus the time and place where a particular protein is produced can be observed. Expression studies can be taken a step further by altering the promoter to find which pieces are crucial for the proper expression of the gene and are actually bound by transcription factor proteins; this process is known as promoter bashing.
Human genetic engineering
See also: Human genetic engineering
Human genetic engineering can be used to treat genetic disease, but there is a difference between treating the disease in an individual and changing the genome that gets passed down to that person's descendants (germ-line genetic engineering).[7]
Human genetic engineering has the potential to change human beings' appearance, adaptability, intelligence, character, and behavior. It may potentially be used in creating more dramatic changes in humans.[citation needed] There are many unresolved ethical issues and concerns surrounding this technology, and it remains a controversial topic.
Forms
Genetic engineering can enable the transport of genes between unrelated (transgenesis) or related (cisgenesis) organisms that would otherwise be unable to occur naturally, due to differences in anatomy or the incorrespondence between the DNA structures.[8] This form of genetic engineering can produce unpredictable results to the genome of the organisms, and can be related to those mutation processes.[8]
Advantages
The modification of the DNA structures of agricultural crops can increase the growth rates and even resistance to different diseases caused by pathogens and parasites.[8] This is extremely beneficial as it can greatly increase the production of food sources with the usage of fewer resources that would be required to host the world's growing populations. These modified crops would also reduce the usage of chemicals, such as fertilizers and pesticides, and therefore decrease the severity and frequency of the damages produced by these chemical pollution.[8] Domesticated animals can undergo the same mechanism. Genetic engineering can also increase the genetic diversity of species populations, especially those that are classified as being endangered. Increase in genetic diversity would enabled these organisms to evolve more efficiently that would allow better adaptation to the ecosystems they inhabit. It would also reduce the vulnerability of certain diseases produced by pathogens, as well as decrease the risk of inbreeding that would produce infertile youths. Genetic engineering can be performed to increase to the efficiency of the ecosystem services provided by the other organisms.[9] For example, the modification of a tree's genes could perhaps increase the root systems of these organisms reduce the damage produced by flood phenomena through flood mitigation.
cannaboy
Member
List of countries with regulations on organic agriculture[1]Region Country Status Website (where available) European Union (27) Austria Fully implemented [1] Belgium Fully implemented [2] Bulgaria Fully implemented [3] Cyprus Fully implemented [4] Czech Republic Fully implemented [5] Denmark Fully implemented [6] Estonia Fully implemented [7] Finland Fully implemented [8] France Fully implemented [9] Germany Fully implemented [10] Greece Fully implemented [11] Hungary Fully implemented [12] Ireland Fully implemented [13] Italy Fully implemented [14] Latvia Fully implemented [15] Lithuania Fully implemented [16] Luxembourg Fully implemented [17] Malta Fully implemented [18] Poland Fully implemented [19] Portugal Fully implemented [20] Romania Fully implemented [21] Slovak Republic Fully implemented [22] Slovenia Fully implemented [23] Spain Fully implemented [24] Sweden Fully implemented [25] The Netherlands Fully implemented [26] United Kingdom Fully implemented [27] Others Europe (10) Albania Not fully implemented Croatia Fully implemented Iceland Fully implemented [28] Macedonia Fully implemented Moldova Fully implemented Montenegro Fully implemented [29] Norway Fully implemented Serbia Not fully implemented
Switzerland Fully implemented [30] Turkey Fully implemented Asia and Pacific Region (11) Australia Only export regulations [31]
Bhutan Not fully implemented China Fully implemented India Only export regulations [32] Israel Fully implemented Japan Fully implemented [33] New Zealand Only export regulations Philippines Not fully implemented South Korea Fully implemented Taiwan Fully implemented Thailand Fully implemented [34] The Americas and Caribbean (14) Argentina Fully implemented Bolivia Not fully implemented [35]
Brazil Fully implemented [36] Canada Not fully implemented Chile Fully implemented Costa Rica National regulations not fully implemented [37] Dominican Republic Not fully implemented Ecuador Fully implemented [38] El Salvador Not fully implemented [39] Honduras Fully implemented [40] Mexico Not fully implemented Paraguay Not fully implemented Peru Not fully implemented US Fully implemented [41]
Africa (2) Ghana Not fully implemented Tunisia Fully implemented
[edit] Countries with regulations in development[1]
Region Country Website
Europe (3) Bosnia Herzegovina Russia Ukraine Asia and Pacific Region (8) Armenia Azerbaijan Georgia [2] Hong Kong Indonesia Lebanon Saudi Arabia Vietnam The Americas & Caribbean (3) Cuba Nicaragua St. Lucia Africa (2) Cameroon Egypt Madagascar South Africa
Switzerland Fully implemented [30] Turkey Fully implemented Asia and Pacific Region (11) Australia Only export regulations [31]
Bhutan Not fully implemented China Fully implemented India Only export regulations [32] Israel Fully implemented Japan Fully implemented [33] New Zealand Only export regulations Philippines Not fully implemented South Korea Fully implemented Taiwan Fully implemented Thailand Fully implemented [34] The Americas and Caribbean (14) Argentina Fully implemented Bolivia Not fully implemented [35]
Brazil Fully implemented [36] Canada Not fully implemented Chile Fully implemented Costa Rica National regulations not fully implemented [37] Dominican Republic Not fully implemented Ecuador Fully implemented [38] El Salvador Not fully implemented [39] Honduras Fully implemented [40] Mexico Not fully implemented Paraguay Not fully implemented Peru Not fully implemented US Fully implemented [41]
Africa (2) Ghana Not fully implemented Tunisia Fully implemented
[edit] Countries with regulations in development[1]
Region Country Website
Europe (3) Bosnia Herzegovina Russia Ukraine Asia and Pacific Region (8) Armenia Azerbaijan Georgia [2] Hong Kong Indonesia Lebanon Saudi Arabia Vietnam The Americas & Caribbean (3) Cuba Nicaragua St. Lucia Africa (2) Cameroon Egypt Madagascar South Africa
TheBudFather
Active member
I'm not sure why ppl are saying Organics are expensive????
Surely if you make tea, its almost free...
Biobizz Grow = £10 per litre
Biobizz Bloom =£10 per litre
'Meridian' Unsulphured Blackstrap Molasses = £2 per 750mg
Hygrozyme = £40 Per Litre
Total £62....
Thats kinda cheap, for enough nutes to see me through a nice size grow. The crop will piss on that £62 eventually...its not even in the equation..... why bicker over a few small pennys in this game.
Surely if you make tea, its almost free...
Biobizz Grow = £10 per litre
Biobizz Bloom =£10 per litre
'Meridian' Unsulphured Blackstrap Molasses = £2 per 750mg
Hygrozyme = £40 Per Litre
Total £62....
Thats kinda cheap, for enough nutes to see me through a nice size grow. The crop will piss on that £62 eventually...its not even in the equation..... why bicker over a few small pennys in this game.
Cannaboy, I'm not sure what the point was of posting those lengthy articles here, it's easier on the eyes to post the link to the article, and paste in any relevant tidbits that express your point.
But, your articles include the following:
The USDA does not inspect organic farmers. [5] Of the 30 third party inspectors 15 of them have been placed under probation after an audit. On April 20th, 2010, the Department of Agriculture said that it would begin enforcing rules requiring the spot testing of organically grown foods for traces of pesticides, after an auditor exposed major gaps in federal oversight of the organic food industry.[6]
North America
In the US, federal organic legislation defines three levels of organics. Products made entirely with certified organic ingredients and methods can be labeled "100% organic". Products with at least 95% organic ingredients can use the word "organic". Both of these categories may also display the USDA organic seal. A third category, containing a minimum of 70% organic ingredients, can be labeled "made with organic ingredients".
I'm not even sure why you posted the last article, ethylene ripening and GMO seeds are stating your case in what way?
But, your articles include the following:
The USDA does not inspect organic farmers. [5] Of the 30 third party inspectors 15 of them have been placed under probation after an audit. On April 20th, 2010, the Department of Agriculture said that it would begin enforcing rules requiring the spot testing of organically grown foods for traces of pesticides, after an auditor exposed major gaps in federal oversight of the organic food industry.[6]
North America
In the US, federal organic legislation defines three levels of organics. Products made entirely with certified organic ingredients and methods can be labeled "100% organic". Products with at least 95% organic ingredients can use the word "organic". Both of these categories may also display the USDA organic seal. A third category, containing a minimum of 70% organic ingredients, can be labeled "made with organic ingredients".
I'm not even sure why you posted the last article, ethylene ripening and GMO seeds are stating your case in what way?
cannaboy
Member
5.^ http://www.alternet.org/environment/94146/is_your_organic_food_really_organic/
6.^ http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_20459.cfm
Here are some links to read there available here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_food
I had to move them sorry for any inconvinience,
http://orgprints.org/12892/01/12892.pdf
http://www.fas.usda.gov/itp/cuba/CubaSituation0308.pdf
http://www.cigb.edu.cu/pages/iap.htm
http://www.pugwash.org/reports/ees/cuba2004/03 Pugwash/02_Rebecca.pdf
http://www.sustainabletimes.ca/articles/cubanfarms.htm
http://www.sixtytwo.biz/en/__organicfood1.htm
http://www.organicconsumers.org/organic/italy062804.cfm
http://www.bio-austria.at/presse/presseinfo_archiv/pressemeldung__4
http://www.biolebensmittel.at/filemanager/download/20165/
http://www.agrarnet.info/netautor/napro4/appl/na_professional/parse.php?id=20000,,900161,
http://www.biolebensmittel.at/article/archive/12548
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/pl...REREL_YEAR_2007_MONTH_06/5-12062007-EN-BP.PDF
http://www.organicagcentre.ca/Docs/RetailSalesOrganic_Canada2006.pdf
http://www.organicagcentre.ca/Docs/RetailSalesOrganic_Canada2006.pdf
http://www.preparedfoods.com/CDA/Archives/d403da4af1788010VgnVCM100000f932a8c0____
http://www.oekolandbau.de/haendler/marktinformationen/biomarkt-weltweit/usa-stand-102006/
http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aib777/
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/01/b...&en=1a66fec0344c8870&ei=5094&partner=homepage
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6638417/
http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/fssa/microchem/resid/2004-2005/anima_e.shtml#dailai
http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/fssa/microchem/resid/2003-2004/plaveg_pte.shtml
http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/fssa/microchem/resid/2003-2004/plaveg_e.shtml#frefra
http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/fssa/microchem/resid/2004-2005/plaveg_ptimpe.shtml
http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/fssa/microchem/resid/2004-2005/plaveg_ffe.shtml
http://www.ams.usda.gov/science/pdp/Summary2005.pdf
http://www.consumersunion.org/food/organicpr.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12028642
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02652030110113799
http://www.consumersunion.org/food/organicsumm.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/30/opinion/30stutchbury.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3936463.stm
There are 20 more,,,
6.^ http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_20459.cfm
Here are some links to read there available here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_food
I had to move them sorry for any inconvinience,
http://orgprints.org/12892/01/12892.pdf
http://www.fas.usda.gov/itp/cuba/CubaSituation0308.pdf
http://www.cigb.edu.cu/pages/iap.htm
http://www.pugwash.org/reports/ees/cuba2004/03 Pugwash/02_Rebecca.pdf
http://www.sustainabletimes.ca/articles/cubanfarms.htm
http://www.sixtytwo.biz/en/__organicfood1.htm
http://www.organicconsumers.org/organic/italy062804.cfm
http://www.bio-austria.at/presse/presseinfo_archiv/pressemeldung__4
http://www.biolebensmittel.at/filemanager/download/20165/
http://www.agrarnet.info/netautor/napro4/appl/na_professional/parse.php?id=20000,,900161,
http://www.biolebensmittel.at/article/archive/12548
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/pl...REREL_YEAR_2007_MONTH_06/5-12062007-EN-BP.PDF
http://www.organicagcentre.ca/Docs/RetailSalesOrganic_Canada2006.pdf
http://www.organicagcentre.ca/Docs/RetailSalesOrganic_Canada2006.pdf
http://www.preparedfoods.com/CDA/Archives/d403da4af1788010VgnVCM100000f932a8c0____
http://www.oekolandbau.de/haendler/marktinformationen/biomarkt-weltweit/usa-stand-102006/
http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aib777/
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/01/b...&en=1a66fec0344c8870&ei=5094&partner=homepage
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6638417/
http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/fssa/microchem/resid/2004-2005/anima_e.shtml#dailai
http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/fssa/microchem/resid/2003-2004/plaveg_pte.shtml
http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/fssa/microchem/resid/2003-2004/plaveg_e.shtml#frefra
http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/fssa/microchem/resid/2004-2005/plaveg_ptimpe.shtml
http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/fssa/microchem/resid/2004-2005/plaveg_ffe.shtml
http://www.ams.usda.gov/science/pdp/Summary2005.pdf
http://www.consumersunion.org/food/organicpr.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12028642
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02652030110113799
http://www.consumersunion.org/food/organicsumm.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/30/opinion/30stutchbury.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3936463.stm
There are 20 more,,,
osirica420
Active member
think your missing the concept here my friend..
without all the elements your missing certain chemical reactions within the plant..
meaning the plant will not hit its genetic potential..
this is common sense...
Organics ensures its getting pretty much all the elements and enzymes(whatevers in the soil).. compared to the only 10 element you give your chem plant, its just common sense there would be something missing from the plant besides minerals...
Anyways the main elements the plant uses can be flushed with a exception of calcium which you force feed your plants anyway....so whats the difference?
what are we smoking extra if all flushed a bit extra trace minerals?
if just adding trace minerals to a chem grow is going to result in more potent and healthy pot then why not? shear ignorance???
secondly you have never grown weed in sea minerals so dont make any assumptions about the bud...
i have been growing in sea minerals 3 yrs and have been smoking over 17+ yrs i think i know the difference between weed grown with or without sea minerals...
And I will tell you the most potent most flavorful weed i have ever grown til this date was grown with Sea Salt and FloraNova Bloom!
I will never use organics(decomposing matter) again, FloraNova and Sea Minerals(which is organic) produced the best bud i have ever had so far!
i would take these studies opinion over yours any day deadhead sorry!...
please take a look....
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070319091015.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18393430
http://njfarmfresh.rutgers.edu/documents/TomatoSalt2009.pdf
http://ajol.info/index.php/ajb/article/download/42896/26460
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080428092116.htm
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/65656.php
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/114300024/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jf0634451
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17756458/ns/technology_and_science-science/
http://www.nutraingredients.com/Research/Does-seawater-improve-a-tomato-s-antioxidant-punch
http://scialert.net/abstract/?doi=ajcs.2009.77.86
http://www.boku.ac.at/diebodenkultur/volltexte/band-45/heft-1/ullah.pdf
http://www.springerlink.com/content/q222l05l475566t3/
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/oceano/seawater.htm#composition ..facts about sea minerals...
SeaSolids SSH 4 days dry no cure
SeaSolids ChemDD 6 days dry no cure
R
RNDZL
cannaboy, all that did was pollute the thread with spam. I suggest posting the pertinent part of the article and link the rest next time, our community is add so short and sweet is best
will tell you the straight off snyth vs organic cost analaysis are way way off
WAY OFF
lets see if we cant get past these lengthy reference posts and gets some mroe experience from successful growers.breeders and the like
because so many people have personal success stories using various techs its easy to say, IN MY WORLD, I see no case to change
and that might be a great decision but putting yourself in the shoes of the other gardeners that don't have identical capacities is where the analysis goes awry
I KNOW that a "sterile" & "controlled" evironment has its own costs
synth growers take note: organics are resistant to the environmental variables you pay to control
in the sterile, macro.micro nutrient scenario environmental control is key, and the costs and efforts needed to control that are never mentioned, nor the costs to the aggregate yield when those controls fail
how much is lost to rot mold PM and pests? Funny we don't hear that part, I guess it doesn't exist?
organics make the plant capable of thriving in an UNCONTROLLED environment, reducing the necessity and related costs of environmental controls, which like the humans that made them, are imperfect and fail
will tell you the straight off snyth vs organic cost analaysis are way way off
WAY OFF
lets see if we cant get past these lengthy reference posts and gets some mroe experience from successful growers.breeders and the like
because so many people have personal success stories using various techs its easy to say, IN MY WORLD, I see no case to change
and that might be a great decision but putting yourself in the shoes of the other gardeners that don't have identical capacities is where the analysis goes awry
I KNOW that a "sterile" & "controlled" evironment has its own costs
synth growers take note: organics are resistant to the environmental variables you pay to control
in the sterile, macro.micro nutrient scenario environmental control is key, and the costs and efforts needed to control that are never mentioned, nor the costs to the aggregate yield when those controls fail
how much is lost to rot mold PM and pests? Funny we don't hear that part, I guess it doesn't exist?
organics make the plant capable of thriving in an UNCONTROLLED environment, reducing the necessity and related costs of environmental controls, which like the humans that made them, are imperfect and fail
I've grown many crops both ways over many years... I'm not missing any points.
For the first dozen years of my life 80% of everything I ate was organically raised by my parents and I. I grew up farming organically. I grew cannabis organically in soil for years before making the switch to hydro. I could care less about theory, If a thing makes no discernible improvement it is unnecessary. I'm not asking anyone to do anything based on my word. Which of those studies deal with cannabis? Which terpinoids and flavinoids are built from sea minerals?
For the first dozen years of my life 80% of everything I ate was organically raised by my parents and I. I grew up farming organically. I grew cannabis organically in soil for years before making the switch to hydro. I could care less about theory, If a thing makes no discernible improvement it is unnecessary. I'm not asking anyone to do anything based on my word. Which of those studies deal with cannabis? Which terpinoids and flavinoids are built from sea minerals?
Last edited:
cannaboy
Member
some organic soil grown strawberrys
Some organic clones
A organic blue's at week 6... 7th week from its mother you get's me all organic it works well... This clone is 20 years old nearly like the1 underneath it grows shit in hydro and it was bread in soil like the 1 below boath are probably the most horded and dispised clones in the uk but there 2 of the best,, I wouldn't dream of perhaps killing them off like Ive seen krunchbubble do because chemicles may cause genetic drift.. And not cloning under natural sunlight this is peretive for genetic survival its natural and organic too..
this is cheese it is a small yield but was a side by side grow to see how organics works,,
cannaboy I appreciate your copy cuy paste efforts but dude were stoners here man and were not gonna read all of that. I'm sure there is some good info for veggies in there but damn man can't ya edit it a bit to fit your point? I'll give ya some time to clean it up a bit to get your point across so I don't have to ok?
And to the man that said Grat3fulh3ad was missing something
h
Dude seriously come on now that's like saying Elvis didn't now how to entertain or Megan Fox doesn't look good with no clothes you get the idea.
This is an open mined discussion STICKY thread. It will be here long after many of you are not. So let's not pollute it.
Have A Great Day
Mr.Wags
And to the man that said Grat3fulh3ad was missing something
hDude seriously come on now that's like saying Elvis didn't now how to entertain or Megan Fox doesn't look good with no clothes you get the idea.
This is an open mined discussion STICKY thread. It will be here long after many of you are not. So let's not pollute it.
Have A Great Day
Mr.Wags
Last edited:
