Wayne - put your mouse on the red-highlighted word and "left click".

Mastergardener - so called "conventional" practices arose when chemical companies had to find a way to market their petroleum-based products when the demand slackened with the end of WWII. Nitrogen-based fertilizers and many pesticides and herbicides are the re-purposing of stockpiled ingredients from explosives and other military applications. In use, these products are very effective, but lead eventually to imbalances of the soil biota and have with long-term use been shown to be damaging to soils, rivers, and air-quality. The Gulf of Mexico has a growing "dead zone" that is attributed in large part to the long-term use of non-organic practices in the watershed that feeds the Mississippi River. There are many reasons that could be argued for using organic practices, not least, in my opinion, the fact that our dwindling petroleum resources might best be employed in the development of alternative energy technologies, while we still have that option. Arguments favoring human health, ecology, and economics are equally valid. The concept of profitability, more crucial to commercial growers than gardeners, is also an element, and it has been shown by some of the most dedicated organic growers that these practices can be commercially viable on smaller acreages. Every gardener has his own reasons for the practices they choose, but for my money, there are too many benefits to organic gardening, in the big picture, not to give it priority. Hidden costs are what we're leaving our kids and grandchildren (the national debt, the plastic in the ocean, nuclear waste) - I don't want my garden to contribute to that any more than necessary.

bi11me - (English major, spelling freak)

Thank you much. In-organic is easier to use as it does not take up much storage and never goes bad.

"bi11me - (English major, spelling freak)"

lol? :)

MasterGardener: A Ms. Worthington did a review study in the 1990s that showed organic had anywhere between 30% and 60% more major minerals (like Ca, K, Mg, and so on) than conventional. But a more recent finding that really impresses me is that organic has two- to 4-times more secondarry metabolites. These are the complex structures that either protect the plant from attack or provide odors and colors to attract beneficial pollinators and insect parasites. So what? Clearly a plant that can protect itself better will yield better. But, more important, the myriad secondary metabolites also improve our resitance and well being. Not surprising since animals, including us, evolved eating plants. Regards, Peter.

I use a news feed service from Google News that sends me English language articles from news sources all over the world, and organic practices are increasingly common in the US, India, Africa, and the Philippines, and for a variety of reasons. If you have a google account, you can go to Google News, click on "personalize your news" (the little pencil in the top right of the page), and add "organic farming" or "urban agriculture" or whatever your interest is, and you will get new articles as they come available, from news sources and blogs worldwide.

Here is a link that might be useful: google news

I thank you for the information. I thank you for taking the time to post.

Playing the devil's advocate here.
Organic gardeners can, and sometimes do add to the dead zone in the Gulf Of Mexico and various other fertilizer problems. Excess N and P in the form of run off and vaporization end up somewhere as does the over use of commercial fertilizers. It is not testing your soil and adding amendments properly that cause the problems. Along with not controling or being able to control the run off of water when we have excessive rain.
Every time we bring organics into our garden from somewhere else are we not in fact robbing the nutrients from some other piece of land? More than likely from some non organic place which in a way makes us dependent on them.

"Every time we bring organics into our garden from somewhere else are we not in fact robbing the nutrients from some other piece of land? More than likely from some non organic place which in a way makes us dependent on them".

Absolutely, this happens on a huge scale. Also in the reverse, as in the mad removal of every dead leaf and other scraps of OM from every yard in every suburb in north america. So the question is, when faced with the common situation of a piece of growing ground that is insufficiently mineralized, how to bring in those nutrients most efficiently while doing the least harm to some other place?

It would be unfair to criticize bringing leaves from sources that don't want those leaves as robbing. The same goes for mined rock and minerals from dry barren places...also sand and peat moss from local sources that provide some income for those people.

I believe that using some of earth's resources wisely is ok. I do not worship God's creation, but rather The Creator.

Robbing the soil is a phrase used by the agricultural community. It is especially used when speaking of hay fields. Although the NPK and maybe a few trace elements are added back into the soil, it is being described as being robed because of the many micro nutrients and organics that are taken away.
I am in no way criticizing, just playing devil's advocate.
I grow most everything I eat organically. I have also watched the runoff from my garden enter a ditch, that enters a stream, that enters a river, that enters the Gulf.

Any operation that chronically raises and sells a crop from a piece of ground is running out the dozens of elements that don't get replaced.

I agree, Wayne, if people are so foolish as to insist on removing OM from their property then we may as well take it.

I suspect that much of my gardens are quite high in organic matter. Those that are highly amended soak up rains like a sponge and don't run into a ditch. Even the other areas drain into a pasture or field in a 3 inch rain.

In regard to the run-off issue, organic compounds are comparatively much lower in concentrations of N and P, and those elements are usually in a far less soluble state than what is found in "conventional" inputs - the whole concept behind industrial fertilizers and pesticides is in making the chemicals easily available to the intended target. The natural ecology can usually adapt to added nutrients from organic practices that are applied within reasonable parameters, but the run-off from thousands of acres of conventional agriculture creates too much pressure on natural processes. The analogy is akin to dropping a balloon on your foot vs. a cannon ball.

bi1 1me: "so called "conventional" practices arose when chemical companies had to find a way to market their petroleum-based products when the demand slackened with the end of WWII. Nitrogen-based fertilizers and many pesticides and herbicides are the re-purposing of stockpiled ingredients from explosives and other military applications."

Care to provide any documentation proving your assertion that stockpiled explosives were used to make fertilizer or is that just a guess?

How's this?

Here is a link that might be useful: BOOM!

Or, for the chronically skeptical and historically challenged:

http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt07/nitrogen.html

http://books.google.com/books?id=t_yLQfgTrI4C&pg=PA5&lpg=PA5&dq=nitrogen+WWII&source=bl&ots=6irwer2nvh&sig=HGLvLREcMkWPmnfWxd8BjGFlvog&hl=en&sa=X&ei=CNjrTub6JsfZ0QHJspzICQ&ved=0CFcQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=nitrogen%20WWII&f=false

http://www.organicvalley.coop/why-organic/synthetic-fertilizers/

And further:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_zone_%28ecology%29

http://www.smm.org/deadzone/causes/top.html

Here is a link that might be useful: How to find things on the internet

I am not a English Major.
I believe that the first thing in the garden should be a soil test & once every three to four years.
Anyone can over do the fertilizer.
Many farmer are not using a heavy hand when fertilizer, because of the cost.
Can we save the plant from a cost angle?

"Conventional" farmers have soil tests done annually because they plunk down expensive synthetic fertilizers annually and do not want to waste their money on stuff not needed. If someone applies any type of fertilizer to their soil they should have a soil test done first to see if that fertilizer is needed and how much of it is needed. A good, reliable soil test is one tool that should be used more often.

I am basically an insomniac. I spend many hours researching on the Internet. This is what brought me to this site in the first place. I can find articles which may agree with my opinion and some that do not so I try and have a little common sense when I read opinions and studies found.
In my life span I have gone through the inception of commercial fertilizer to the way it is used today, both agriculturally and in the home garden. Early on the use of commercial fertilizers was devastating to the ecology. There were very few that new anything about doing a soil test. The attitude of a little is good and bunch is better was common. It got to the point that one could not catch fish in any of the bays along the coast. As time progressed farmers and ranchers learned about the proper use of these chemical fertilizers. This became even more important as the price of the fertilizer increased. The farmers have also learned how incorporating organic matter into the soil helped make better use of the commercial fertilizers. Therefore even less is being used.
On the other hand there is a lot more organic waste being applied to pastures and cropland than ever before. I think that to many organic people make the assumption that because they are organic then they can just do what they want. There are many that apply chicken litter on their pastures hay fields and cropland. They are mostly concerned about the Nitrogen content. For those who think this is some small amount I can assure you that you are dead wrong. Chicken litter is applied in tons per acre not lbs. This may be fine for getting the proper amount of nitrogen but chicken litter is also high in phosphorous. The continued use will build up in the soil and much will inevitably be transferred to other places. In cropland there will be very little runoff as it is plowed into the soil. But in pasture land it is usually applied to the surface where there can be substantial runoff and volatilization.
Crop farmers for the most part have become well educated on the proper use of both organic and inorganic fertilizers. They have to be because of the relatively low margin of profit with the business. I feel that small gardeners collectively play a much larger role that what people think. A lot more education needs to be done and maybe a lot more research. I do know that the bay fishing has gotten better not worse. This tells me more people are learning.

Well stated, Novascapes. There is an important distinction to be made between organic practices, which can, as you say, be improperly applied, and those that could be considered truly sustainable. Many growers, both large and small, use organic practices for the wrong reasons, or with insufficient understanding, and are capable of producing harmful results. There are many conventional farmers whose practices could be considered better examples of stewardship than some organic growers who have insufficient understanding or irresponsible methodologies. One has to determine first WHY they are growing, then design their garden around that initial impulse.

HERE HERE Novascapes and Kim. My tiny addition, take soil samples correctly, garbage in, garbage out, the sample must be taken properly to be representative of the area one wants the test results for. In addition, the samples must be handled properly after taking them or analytic results can be skewed. It is easy to take proper samples when you know how, refer to your state Extension service for proper sampling methods.

Phosphorus essentially never vaporizes from soil or soil cover and nitrogen only as ammonia or the innocuous molecular nitrogen. (Smoke and combustion components are an exception.) Vaporization is immaterial as a nutrient loss and transfer mechanism except for the special case of ammonia, and denitrification-origin nitrogen gas acts only as a loss.

The potential for nitrogen loss when
manure is surface-applied and left
for days or weeks is substantial. Urea
costs about $870 per ton, so the sub-
Key Points
�� Incorporating manure can cut fertilizer
costs and lessen environmental pressure.
�� A single dairy manure application can
supply more than $500 worth of nutrients.
�� Delayed incorporation leaves the nitrogen
subject to rapid evaporation.
Conserving N in manure saves money
stitution value of N is about 95 cents
per pound. One thousand gallons of
liquid dairy manure, for example, contains
28 pounds of total N. Half of that
(14 pounds) is ammonium N, plus 12
pounds of phosphorus (P205) and 20
pounds of potassium (K20). Research
from Vermont showed the greatest ammonium
"N loss occurs within 10 hours
of surface application. Waiting 24 hours
to incorporate the application resulted
in a 50% loss of the ammonium N. This
N loss is not restricted to liquid manure,
either. Solid and semi-solid manures lose
even more N because there is no liquid
to be absorbed by the soil."
It took me about 10 seconds to google this up. Without going further down the page I would expect to find a few more.
Below is a link to where I got the Quote from.

Here is a link that might be useful: N conservation with manure

There is an important distinction to be made between organic practices, which can, as you say, be improperly applied, and those that could be considered truly sustainable. Many growers, both large and small, use organic practices for the wrong reasons, or with insufficient understanding, and are capable of producing harmful results. There are many conventional farmers whose practices could be considered better examples of stewardship than some organic growers who have insufficient understanding or irresponsible methodologies. One has to determine first WHY they are growing, then design their garden around that initial impulse.

I agree with this paragraph so much that it hurts. Well said.

As mentioned, ammonia loss is the ONLY significant normal loss in vaporization in typical agricultural or horticultural soils. (Flooded rice fields might lose some as N2 by denitrification.) Neither can be properly considered as adding to pollution. Save by burning crop residues, phosphorous will not ever be lost by vaporization (and even then it is a vapor just for an instant and then becomes smoke, though later forms a solution as dilute phosphoric acid).

This ammonia loss by the way is one of two main factors that underlie the use of 15N isotopic evidence as to whether commercial fertilizers or else organic sources (manure, septic tanks, etc.) are the source of groundwater nitrate pollution.

Had an interesting talk with a poultry science PHd once, he told me that when it comes to their manure, there is a big difference between hen and rooster.... when roosters poop all the N stays in it, when hens poop much of the N is in the ammoniacal form and off gasses. Wish I could remember what form of N the rooster poop contained, at any rate, the crux of what he said about the rooster poop was that the N in it when it came out the rooster stays there.

Our lab did a TKN-N analysis of either his straight rooster poop or the compost he made from the poop+rooster carcasses +some brown, whichever one it was, the N was 8%, I was impressed! RAISE MORE ROOSTERS! BTW, he was raising the roosters for the hackles and selling those to fly fishermen, quite a setup he had going.

Up until fairly recently chickens widely were fed arsenic to deal with some internal infectious organism. I'll bet most gardners didn't know they were getting that with their organic fertilizer.

And regarding the interesting hen vs. rooster dichotomy in terms of ammonia vs. non-ammonia in waste, you wonder if rooster intestinal "innards" are somehow aerobic, or if roosters somehow excrete their waste N mainly as urine?

gonebananas' The scientific evidence disagreeing with your statement on volatilization of nitrogen is overwhelming. In the Netherlands it is such a concern that there are laws covering the use of manure. (Go to Google. Type in "N loss manure volatilization". Then click on search)
Runoff is another concern not only here but world wide. I post a link below regarding it. If you bother reading it they even claim that there is more runoff loss in manures than commercial fertilizers.

Here is a link that might be useful: N & P loss from runoff

Perhaps this article might be of some interest.

Here is a link that might be useful: Can organic feed the world

Thanks Kim for that.

"�give competitive yields to "conventional" methods
�improve soil and boost its capacity to hold water, particularly important during droughts
�save farmers money on pesticides and fertilizers
�save energy because organic production requires 20 to 50 percent less input
�mitigate global warming because cover crops and compost can sequester close to 40 percent of global CO2 emissions
�increase food nutrient density"

Another Note:

"There are many conventional farmers whose practices could be considered better examples of stewardship than some organic growers who have insufficient understanding or irresponsible methodologies"

This is true. When gas rises in price......

What will be easier/cheaper?

In conclusion, using synthetic fertilizer is the best way to make money for right now. Its like buying a 1 dollar cheese burger not understanding that cheese burger costs the enviroment 100 dollars or MORE (Raj Patel).

In the long run it may be a good idea to produce local compost.

The heading on this post is, "organic better" so allow me some latitude in this response.

It appears from reading responses in the organic section of GW that many haven't a clue about large scale commercial agriculture, certainly not grain production with which I am familiar.

Just look at the BMPs for manure use for probably any Land Grant college in this country for grain production... they will state that manure is to be applied based on a soil test and the application rate based on the concentration of P (not N) in the manure. It will also state that the manure should be incorporated +- X number of hours after apreading. None of this is new to farmers and certainly not to the BMPs that have been around for some time now.

All the grain farmers that I know have no interest in over applying anything whether it is ag. chemicals or seed because ALL of the stuff is very expensive and that money comes out of their pockets; these guys aren't rich, contrary to what you may have seen on TV, they use very used equipment and would love to be able to buy new, better equipment that can do a better job of things like incorporating manure.

Having farmed their ground for generations, they are well aware what affects crop yield on their farms and again, do not want to risk their farms or they will be SOL in a hurry.

Crop rotations, cover cropping, pasturing stubble are all very common practices.

So, yes they do use ag. chemicals but not with reckless abandon, flinging them about wildly without a clue of what they are doing.

In conclusion, better than what? I assume than relying solely on ag. chemicals. Well, I suppose that depends on how many people you have on the planet and what they want to eat. There is no way in Hades the world's current demand for grain could be supplied with today's understanding of agricultural practices via organic methods exclusively. It wouldn't bother me a bit if the producers around here used more manure and less urea but if they did the soil P levels would go through the roof in time so, what to do?

A lot of the cost will depend on the availability of the organics. In my situation I have found that using all the organic material I can get my hands on locally is the most profitable. Even though synthetics must be used from time to time (very rare at this point) the organics make the synthetics work better.
In the long run I am working toward exactly what the above article suggests, Sustainable beef production?
The word synthetic is used quite a bit, including me, so I have a question.
When using commercial fertilizers isn't the only thing synthetic the nitrogen?

"When using commercial fertilizers isn't the only thing synthetic the nitrogen?"

Well most of the conventional fertilizer isn't something that is found out there laying around in nature without some processing at least...so it isn't considered organic.

Phosphorus is treated with SO4 and that isn't what nature exactly does. Potash is in a processed form so that makes it somewhat un-natural. And of course the nitrogen is processed too.

I remember the old days with all the plowing, discing, rediscing, planting with 2 or 4 row planters, the rotary hoeing, the harrowing, the repeated row cultivations.
The no-till with wide equipment is a lot more gentle in many ways for the soil now.

"In conclusion, better than what? I assume than relying solely on ag. chemicals. Well, I suppose that depends on how many people you have on the planet and what they want to eat. There is no way in Hades the world's current demand for grain could be supplied with today's understanding of agricultural practices via organic methods exclusively. It wouldn't bother me a bit if the producers around here used more manure and less urea but if they did the soil P levels would go through the roof in time so, what to do?"

Well said.

When "conventional" farmers soil test shows a need for fertilizer it can show a need for Nitrogen, but may also show a need for Phosphorus, Potash, Iron, Calcium, Magnesium and often others. That is one of the reasons why you have "superphosphate", muriate of potash, and others without the soil biology organic gardeners/farmers should have in their soil these "conventional farmers need nutrients that do not need the Soil Food Web to convert into something plants can utilize.
"Conventional" farmers do not want to waste thier money applying fertilizers they do not need or in quantities above what is needed to produce good yields. An excess of fertilizer can also reduce yields, which reduces profits.

The one thing I try and keep in mind in all things I do. It should be applied to gardening as well.
Newton's law of motion, To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction.
So just to throw another wrench into the gears here is some more food for thought. Living in central Texas, with 7.8pH soil it would be beneficial for me to add peat moss repeatedly for years to come. The peat moss we get here comes from Canada. So how much green house gas is being produced from the equipment digging it up and the transport of it from Canada to here? This is not to mention the plastic bag it is wrapped in that goes to the land fill. How organic does that make me? On the other hand I could use sulphur (non organic) which is produced less than 100 miles away and comes in a paper bag.
Here is another tid-bit of information. If you do not turn your compost pile you are producing methane gas and further contributing to the green house gas.

"If you do not turn your compost pile you are producing methane gas and further contributing to the green house gas."

I'd like to see some documentation on this please.

Lloyd

I think we'd all agree, organic takes a great deal of thought as it is darned easy to end up doing harm along with the good, i.e. novascapes comment on the plastic bags filled with peat hauled long distances. There is much to learn and be cognizant of every step of the way.

Lloyd I'm feeling very lazy about the methane and compost pile question and will answer it very simply with this... under anerobic conditions the nitrate ends up as N2 and off gasses so you lose N in the pile, under aerobic conditions that conversion to N2 doesn't occur.

Way back when the city of Chicago had very large feed lots around it there was also a large concentration of very large scale methane generators near the feed lots, these were anerobic digesters fed with manure from feed lots close by. It was a darned slick setup. I believe all that methane was used for lighting in Chicago, remember the term, "lamplighter" those were the guys who would go up and down streets lighting the methane powered street lights. In our tiny little town, there was once a carbide plant that was used to produce acetylene for street lighting.

Oops, got off track a little.

I suspect that is what nova is referring to as well but I'm not sure. If it is, then a more factual statement would have been "If you allow your compost pile to 'go anaerobic' you are producing methane gas and contributing a potent green house gas to the atmosphere". This I would have no argument with. Lack of turning does not necessarily equate to methane production.

Lloyd

You are right pt03. Just posted it as food for thought.
I happened to notice that my compost pile had become very tight in the lower areas and not completely composted. There was to much moisture in the bottom of the pile. This caused a lack of oxygen. Although it may well have been still composting, it could only do this with anaerobic action. Thus producing methane. The upper part of the pile had about the right amount of moisture and was more fluffy so I would assume it was still breaking down with aerobic activity and producing co2.
Sometimes what is going on in my heat just doesn't come out the same when I put it in writing. Please excuse me for that.

Here is a link that might be useful: Anaerobic Fermentation

In Rwanda, the prisons are switching over to crap-digesters to produce gas for cooking and lighting, using human and livestock manure. They prisoners also grow all the food. Never get away with that here, it would be considered cruel and unusual.

Not having one thing to do with this thread, but in the US some lawmaker proposed a flatulence tax to be placed on the people that raised livestock. Which also brings to mind that the fact that we are alive and let one go upon occasion means we are adding to air pollution. (My dry humor)

Novascapes: don't open that line of thought, this thread could go off course real fast :)

I was just on another forum and happened to run across this. The man finially did a soil test. His soil had Phosphate = 454lbs/acre. If you don't think organic fertilizer can be a problem you need to read this.

Here is a link that might be useful: Pasture problem

What happend? Ph went up because of too much manure?

Chronic app of manure drives up P to excess.

Amen Nova and PN, and that's why all the land grant BMPs for all of the many crops I've seen say to base the "organics" addition on the P requirement, not the N requirement.

Is it better that I stop gardening organically, as far as the soil end of things, because my increasingly aging, creaking body can't do it or should I go the handy, doable fertilizer in a bag route and continue to grow the majority of my own food? By producing my own food, it seems I leave perhaps a smaller footprint on the planet by not buying the stuff at a store which has lots of footprint baggage associated with it that my garden doesn't, i.e. shipping, packaging, refrigeration, etc.. Beats me, what say you?

michael,

If the question is an all or nothing equation, you would still be better off growing some of your own food...especially if your soil is presently in good heart.

Perhaps you might continue with a mixture of organic and some what chemical. I am not against that. I think that a half loaf is much better than none. I am not a "fanatic" when it comes to gardening, but somewhat pragmatic.

Novascapes,

"If you don't think organic fertilizer can be a problem you need to read this"

Just like someone said above, some orgainc farmers do more harm than in-orgainic, thats if the organic farmer doesn't know what they are doing.

Let me put it to you this way, why is the bee population drooping? I'll give you a hint organic farmers did NOT do it.

I have alot of synthetic fertilizers stored as they never go bad and I always find a use for them. Even slow release in-organic fertilizer wont hurt microbes but wont help the soil. I agree with in-organic farming even in ground as synthetic fertilizers are easier to ship, store, ect....

Woops!!!!

I must slow down when I type as there is no way to edit!!!!

*dropping

but drooping works too. Not to be vague.

This has got quite a bit of resposes.

Thank you everyone that has posted on here, Nova, pn, and everyone!!!