YOUR GARDEN IS NOT ORGANIC...

[uglybunny]

I refuse to accept "substancial evidence" because I am applying the stricter standard you agreed to - scientific consensus.

the burden is on you, remember? you agreed to that. I'm not as selfless as microbeman, passing out studies to flesh out your conception of soil life. I'm content with stopping at first principles if the idea does not pass.

I've met the burden, there is broad scientific consensus. Multiple peer-reviewed articles back up my statements 100%

First you talk shit to p4p demanding scientific peer reviewed studies, and when faced with them you close your eyes, cover your ears and shout "NAH NAH NAH I CAN'T HEAR YOU, I'M RIGHT." Find some studies that say soil food webs collapse and soils become dead if you use fertilizers within the threshold described in the Zheng paper. Until then, we've got nothing to talk about.

Peace,

UB

EDIT: Since you're probably still not convinced, this paper provides a synthesis of over 100 different experiments conducted on the subject. The general findings are in line with what I have been saying. Valerie Eviner of the University of California describes this paper on the site Faculty of 1000 Biology:

In this synthesis of 100 studies of gross N cycling rates, the authors have demonstrated a number of new, powerful, and surprising generalizations about nitrogen cycling. This paper provides too many important findings to summarize briefly, but three highlights include: (1) proportionally more NH4 is nitrified (versus immobilized by microbes) in soils with low mineralization rates than in soils with high mineralization rates; (2) gross nitrification rates are not related to soil pH (in fact, some of the highest rates were seen in soils with a pH below 5); and (3) overall, fertilization did not impact any measure of N cycling. In addition to these points, this paper explores controls over N consumption and production across agricultural, grassland, and woody sites, as well as differences amongst these types of sites. It also compares net versus gross measures of N. Overall, this is a fabulous, comprehensive synthesis!

 

[mad librettist]

well we never agreed that microbes "becoming dead" is the only thing we want to avoid.

see, if you can't agree on what the definitions are, how can you expect people to listen?

what we want to avoid is an unfavorable alteration in the long- and short-term proportions and complex relationships present in the various food webs we are depending on. you haven't shown anything addressing that, but have instead fixated on death or non-death of a limited subset of said food webs.

I'm ready to be convinced. now give it another whirl. If I have it right, your goal is:

a)show and explain how synthetics can be a part of a balanced diet for soil
b)show there is a scientific consensus showing synthetics in proper amounts do not alter food webs in unintended ways
c)and thus - show there is nothing superior about organic gardening or produce

 

[uglybunny]

what we want to avoid is an unfavorable alteration in the long- and short-term proportions and complex relationships present in the various food webs we are depending on. you haven't shown anything addressing that, but have instead fixated on death or non-death of a limited subset of said food webs.

The "limited subset" you're referring to is what in the scientific community is known as an indicator species. I've already explained what an indicator species is, in my own words, but here is the wiki definition just in case. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indicator_species

Using indicator species, does, in fact, allow us to make reliable inferences about the general condition of an ecosystem.

If I have it right, your goal is:
a)show and explain how synthetics can be a part of a balanced diet for soil
b)show there is a scientific consensus showing synthetics in proper amounts do not alter food webs in unintended ways
c)and thus - show there is nothing superior about organic gardening or produce

A) First two papers posted as well as the Zheng paper provide evidence for this.
1) PGPR paper shows microbes not killed by the mere presence of synthetics
2) Turfgrass paper shows nematodes (the GOLD STANDARD indicator of soil food web health) have similar maturity index and population in organic vs. inorganic soils. Discusses how C:N ratio is a powerful driving factor in soil food web health.
3)Zheng paper further quantifies how much inorganic nutrients can be applied before detrimental effects on soil food web are felt, and supplies an method for determining this threshold in other soils.

B)You are misinterpreting what I mean. I am not saying that inorganic nutrients do not alter the soil food web. I am saying that "organics" change the soil food web just as much as inorganic nutrients. The turfgrass paper is the perfect example because it plainly states: "the food webs in managed turfgrass soil indicated a disturbed food web compared to natural grasslands and forest ecosystems." They make it clear in the study that there is no distinction between organic and non-organic when they say this.

C) Again, misinterpreting what I have been saying. I have always stated that "organic" practices are better for the soil than synthetic. What is important to understand is that the organic processes you do to feed your soil is not undone by applying chemical fertilizers a few times. The turfgrass study illustrates that the microherd continues to function and grow (at a higher rate than control, I might add) despite addition of chemical fertilizers. It is also important to realize that organic practices are not harmless just because they are "natural" and that they can be overdone as well. The studies which highlight the importance of C:N ratio illustrate this well.


So there you have it, I've really given my best shot.

 

[grapeman]

My point is that, there are systems in place to deal with shill scientists.

Please share those systems so we may deal with the global warming/climate change pseudo scientists.

Those clowns at East Anglian/Penn State still have jobs.

 

[Microbeman]

UB; Don't get too full of yourself. The article by Zuberer is flawed because of the reasons I mentioned but it contradicts part of your hypothesis that the chems work within the microbial loop; they don't. Furthermore his article addresses commercial microbial inoculants which as already covered is a totally different area or do you not get that yet? You do know that the article by Forge completely contradicts your hypothesis right? You have shown nothing and almost certainly because you lack the foundation to understand what you are reading or talking about.

There certainly are people and companies trying to sell overpriced brewers. I am not one of these and there are people who have spent their savings researching and developing brewers which are efficient and affordable because they believe in an alternative to polluting the soil and water. On my webpage I recommend stirring with a stick as a first method and give full instructions for manufacture. What have you contributed? I'm asking you only once nicely to discontinue making remarks like that again.

 

[Microbeman]

I'll tell you where the real commercial interests lie, it is with the people who are trying to convince others that conventional soil management systems are the bane of the earth.

True colors shining through.

 

[mad librettist]

The "limited subset" you're referring to is what in the scientific community is known as an indicator species.

and microbeman has disputed the basis for taking nematodes as an indicator species too well for me to try to restate it.

almost every point you make is disputed, and you act surprised that someone isn't convinced?

you accept the precautionary principle, then proceed to redefine it to suit your case.

you redefine scientific consensus to suit your case.

you redefine nutrient cycling to suit your case.

you redefine healthy to suit your case

etc...

We are still stuck in metaphysics and epistemology, that's why it's hard to talk.

 

[mad librettist]

sorry SC, I can't spread any more rep to you.

 

[jaykush]

errr this threads getting a bit out of hand......

 

[uglybunny]

UB; Don't get too full of yourself. The article by Zuberer is flawed because of the reasons I mentioned but it contradicts part of your hypothesis that the chems work within the microbial loop; they don't. Furthermore his article addresses commercial microbial inoculants which as already covered is a totally different area or do you not get that yet? You do know that the article by Forge completely contradicts your hypothesis right? You have shown nothing and almost certainly because you lack the foundation to understand what you are reading or talking about.

Yes, the Zuberer article is flawed, but it does support my point which is again, chemical fertilizers do not kill the microherd when applied in judicious amounts.

The Forge article does not completely contradict this. It simply indicates that organic gardening practices are superior, which I have been saying the entire time. There were no significant between differences chemical fertilizer treated plots and control plots.

The Forge article then goes on to DIRECTLY support another point I have been making. Which is, using chemicals does not prevent one from gaining benefits from using organics.

Application of manure for one year to
previously non-treated or fertilized soil raised the abundance
of protozoa and bacterivorous and fungivorous nematodes to
levels comparable to continuously manured soil

So perhaps you'd like to reread the article...

There certainly are people and companies trying to sell overpriced brewers. I am not one of these and there are people who have spent their savings researching and developing brewers which are efficient and affordable because they believe in an alternative to polluting the soil and water. On my webpage I recommend stirring with a stick as a first method and give full instructions for manufacture. What have you contributed? I'm asking you only once nicely to discontinue making remarks like that again.

My comments were not directed at you personally, if you feel like they were I'm sorry. I was just making the point that there are an equal number of commercial interests driving "organic" practices and it isn't just limited to those producing "organic" ferts for people to buy in the store.

 

[uglybunny]

True colors shining through.

No need to be rude. I could imply mean things about you too, but that wouldn't be very mature.

 

[mad librettist]

Yes, the Zuberer article is flawed, but it does support my point which is again, chemical fertilizers do not kill the microherd when applied in judicious amounts.

If that's your point, it's not particularly relevant. But that has been pointed out repeatedly.

It's relationships that matter, not mere presence.

The Forge article then goes on to DIRECTLY support another point I have been making. Which is, using chemicals does not prevent one from gaining benefits from using organics.

for sure. so what? I have known and most here know that organic methods are powerful enough to help mitigate all kinds of harm. Especially harm from conventional farming practices.

The converse is not true by some transitive property - adding synthetics to organics improve anything. is this clear enough? less bad is not the same as better?

 

[uglybunny]

and microbeman has disputed the basis for taking nematodes as an indicator species too well for me to try to restate it.

All microbe man did was say he thought protozoa are superior indicators. However, I've posted the citations for several articles which clearly explain why nematodes are the most efficient and accurate indicators of soil food web health. I would provide them in downloadable format but my database subscription doesn't cover downloading on the site they are accessible to me on.

I told you I'm not going to hold your hand. If you can't be bothered to read what I post, I have nothing to say to you. You're not adding to the coversation, just making posts saying "Nu uh I don't believe you" and not providing any support.

 

[uglybunny]

for sure. so what? I have known and most here know that organic methods are powerful enough to help mitigate all kinds of harm. Especially harm from conventional farming practices.

The converse is not true by some transitive property - adding synthetics to organics improve anything. is this clear enough? less bad is not the same as better?

If you look at the Zheng article it clearly shows how synthetics improve things...like I said if you can't be bothered to read what I post, I have nothing to say to you.

 

[Lapides]

The USDA says:

Organic food is produced by farmers who emphasize the use of renewable resources and the conservation of soil and water to enhance environmental quality for future generations. Organic meat, poultry, eggs, and dairy products come from animals that are given no antibiotics or growth hormones. Organic food is produced without using most conventional pesticides; fertilizers made with synthetic ingredients or sewage sludge; bioengineering; or ionizing radiation. Before a product can be labeled ‘organic,’ a Government-approved certifier inspects the farm where the food is grown to make sure the farmer is following all the rules necessary to meet USDA organic standards. Companies that handle or process organic food before it gets to your local supermarket or restaurant must be certified, too.”

So how does using Liquid Karma in my garden negate my garden from being organic?

 

[Payaso]

Having spent considerable time cleaning this thread from all the off-topic childish bickering, I have to remind you of the topic at hand in this thread...

Organic Gardening...Let's keep it on track.

Thanks!

 

[vonforne]

Ok now we have Payaso in here. This is beginning to repeat itself a little too often.

BTW Thanks Payaso.

Nice job guys.

 

[vonforne]

On second thought.......for some this is a repeat thing. Next time I close the thread and have the ones involved banned so they can start all over again.

 

[C21H30O2]

here is a question: im sure you would be able add synthetics to organics without destroying the food web but why would you? If your soil is built properly wouldn't adding synthetics be like buying a gold platted toilet? sure you could do it but whats the point.

 

[mad librettist]

ever compare a big mac to anything out of a julia child cookbook?

why do people want big macs then?