A plant really doesn't care how the nutrients got there; just as your body doesn't care. As long as you read the labels to make sure there isn't anything added such as herbicides and pesticides, you're safe. I use as much organic materials as I can get, but sometimes you just have to give it a boost.

reptilegrrl;

"Moving to the Darkside" can be fun and you will probably learn a great deal. I have posted here and other places expressing what may seem to be contrary opinions. I really think that using chemical fertilizer is a "personal choice", and it is just another technological tool to be used in moderation. And as in all things that you are going to put into your body and feed to your friends & family one should make informed decisions. Since you have thought about it and want to try it by all means do what you feel you need to do. I know Mel's approach being more organic has it's reasons one it is cheaper, and by many accounts more fruitful.

I think that it is not an "Organic verses Fertilizer" issue, it is more an issue of developing methods that work for you and are give you desirable results. I do know the produce I get now using a more organic approach then I did a decade ago taste better and have a better consistency. Also the garden has fewer plant problem, but that might be a factor that Im a better gardener.

It is the whole sale application of fertilizer, pesticides, & herbicide that scares me. When I use a chemical pesticide that is rare and I have usually been mulling it over for a couple of days. I think judicious application of chemicals is an admirable goal. Please be careful and make sure none of it gets into the water eco-system, since then other problems occur.

Tell use what your results as the season progresses and at the end of the season.

CloneZero

The overuse of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides really worries me, too. I have, so far, not used any chemical pesticides on the garden. I have a mosquito net over it, which may be protecting it.

In the early days Mel used synthetic fertlizers & pesticides, but I hear he is more organic now. I want to be balanced, really- I have no plans to stop amending my soil and applying compost and natural fertilizers, but I am disappointed in the yield I have received so far.

I've also learned that Mel was wrong about at least one thing: he said that in a SFG, plants do not grow deep roots, because they have no need. I ripped out my flat-leaf parsley this weekend, and it had roots that were, in some cases, three feet long! My swiss chard had some long roots also.

I don't think using synthetic fertilizers is a bad thing, as long as it's not the only thing you use. What can bite you is if you rely heavily on these sythetics, which focus on only three elements (nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium or N-P-K), while ignoring the other elements that are required for plant health. Like us, they can't live on just three minerals--we need a complex blend to survive and thrive. It sounds like you already know that.

I use some dilute synthetic fertilizers in my drip irrigation, but that's just a supplement to the bone meal, blood meal, wood ash, compost, and kelp meal that I've already given to my plants. I also do organic foliar feeding pretty regularly.

Ralleia; I mainly use bone meal, blood meal, wood ash, & compost. What does the kelp meal get you? I know kelp was used heavy in farming until the 1930's as a fertilizer. It is supposed to have a lot of trace element. I suppose my seafood compost has a lot of ocean goodness in it, so perhaps I'm getting some of those element that way.

ReptileGrrl: Yeah Mel is just simplifying things so people don't worry about stuff and get down to gardening. Most plants have root systems that are 3 times the size of the foliage. Don't tell anyone I told you. If I were you I would go find some little old lady or man in your neighborhood that has a nice garden. Tell them what you are doing and see if they can tell you what is missing from your SFG. Most gardeners are friendly and "love" to talk about gardening, especially their own. Bless the internet

In what way are your yields lower than expected? Why did you rip out your chard & parsley, they will grow for a couple of seasons at least. Nothing says a SFG can only have annual plants in it.

CloneZero

Ralleia: thanks for your input! I want to mainly use organic amendments, for exactly the reasons you mention. I want healthy soil. I foliar feed with SoilSoup and fish emulsion.

Clonezero: My yields are small in a couple of ways. One, my sugar snap peas made very few peas at all. The vines kept dying back. Two, my broccoli heads are quite small, even compared to organic heads at the grocery.

I ripped out the chard because it appeared to have a disease. It had red spots on the leaves. Some of the leaves were deformed where there was a large concentration of red. I've not been able to find any info about this on the web, but it appeared to be spreading to the broccoli, so the chard had to go. These spots were dark red on all varieties of chard- bright lights, rhubarb, and regular green chard.

The chard has always been a problem. In the fall and winter it had leaf miners, so I cut away all the leaves, and treated with diatomaceous earth over and over. The chard grew back without leaf miners- but then there were the red spots.

I ripped out the flat-leaf parsley because it had begun to bolt. Flower buds were forming and the taste was ruined. It has actually never tasted very good. The curly-leaf parsley tastes sweet and is withstanding the heat very well. Next time I won't waste energy on flat-leaf.

ReptileGrrl;

We'll I will tell you that chem-fertilizer will not help you with pests or disease. It will help you with the broccoli, but so would some directed organic fertiliser.

Does your SFG bed have direct access to the ground or do you have mulch fabric under it? If you have fabric under it it might be time to remove it where you plant big plants and let them access the deep ground. I have found that if a plant can not get enough soil or water it will be stunted.

Pea's are always a challenge and they are very dependent on soil, temperature, & sun light. You might add some soil from your land to the squares they are growing in, it might be that the moisture is to high in the squares, each year my peas are different, well perhaps it is because I keep tweaking them.

Eric

Eric: many master gardeners say that chemical fertilizers, used judiciously, WILL help a plant fend off diseases. Regarding the broccoli, I HAVE been using organic fertilizers. I haven't been just sitting around watching the plants grow.

My bed has direct access to the ground. I lined it with cardboard and newspaper when I first laid it out, but that has mostly disintegrated.

Thanks for the tip about the peas.

reptilegrrl,

Not all Master Gardeners will say this. Some MGers are organic. You may use synthetic products on your skin and ingest it too, you may see short term benefits but nothing will beat organic. There are reasons why people are having more health problems - weight, allergies, cancers, etc in the last 50 years than ever before. Is it coincidence that it coincides with the industrialization of food? Maybe, maybe not. Just because they sell it doesn't mean it's safe or good for you. Anything that increases the shelf life of a product in the grocery store decreases your shelf life. Refined foods, chemical additives, etc. But that is an entirely other topic, I digress.

Why Synthetic Fertilizers are Bad
When synthetic fertilizers are applied to the soil, they dissolve and seek to combine with natural minerals already present. New combinations overload the plant and cause it to become imbalanced. Remaining contaminants stay in the soil and can become poisonous. Fertilizers often produce plants quickly and in large quantities, but over time they become less and less effective and eventually leaving the land collapsed and the soil depleted.

"Synthetic fertilizers and pesticides never become
part of the soil."

"Synthetic fertilizers kill earthworms and other organisms that aerate soil, causing it to compact and kill plants. Inorganic nitrogen-based fertilizers also promote the sprouting of weeds. Compounds in chemical fertilizers also acidify the soil and aid in breeding of some insects. Lawns need a soil pH between 5.6 and 7 or else they turn pale and thin out. Additional doses of chemicals will only make matters worse."

"# We have been forced to pass laws prohibiting fishing of our rivers and lakes due to excessive nitrates, and yet the local lawn & garden guru is on the radio or TV telling us it is time to apply our synthetic fertilizer and pre-emergent herbicide.

# When using synthetic fertilizers at least 35% of the chemical nitrogen, 15-20% of the phosphorus and potassium applied to land is lost because they are applied in amounts greater than can be immediately assimilated by plants or soil. Composting, Rodale Press, 1992

# A recent study of nurseries in 6 states found that 81% of the Nitrogen applied in irrigation water was not used by the plants. It also found that up to 29% of the Nitrogen released from Osmocote was leached out of potting soils within just 11 weeks. "Container Nursery Nitrogen Runoff: A Six State Summary", International Plant Propagators Society, 1992.

# Many beautiful and beneficial insects are being destroyed. Pesticides targeting other harmful (undesired) insects, like mosquitoes or the Gypsy moth, also have been responsible for reduced butterfly numbers. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Nongame and Urban Program.

# We do not and can not test for all the combinations of toxic synthetic chemicals and how they affect the environment. Example: The herbicide Dicamba is characterized as "slightly toxic" or "practically nontoxic" to fish. It has been found that this is widely variable. If Dicamba is absorbed by vermiculite (a common ingredient in potting soils) its toxicity increased by 30 times. No effects were observed on yearling coho salmon at 100 ppm. However, it has now been found that doses as small as 0.25 ppm can kill coho salmon as they migrate from seawater to fresh water for spawning.

# "Dead Zone Spreading" - A lifeless area devoid of oxygen covering more than 7,000 square miles (the size of New Jersey) developed in the Gulf of Mexico in the summer of 1995, the largest ever. Scientists at Cornell University conclude that the dead zone is the end result of an ecological chain reaction set in motion by fertilizers, sewage, and runoff ending up in the Mississippi river. The excess chemicals in the run-off stimulate the rapid growth of algae and phytoplankton. When these die they decompose depleting the water of oxygen. As a result, shellfish, shrimp, and fish that cannot escape soon suffocate and die. The implications of the dead zone exceed those caused by the ozone hole in the atmosphere. The New Garden Journal, January/February 1996.

# A study published by the American Chemical Society, concerning the death of hundreds of moose in southwest Sweden said that acid rain is changing the micronutrient composition of plants that moose graze. In addition moose graze fields that have been limed by farmers further messing up their nutrition. New York Times, 12 March 1996.

# A series of investigative reports (copyrighted) by the Seattle Times Newspaper has found that many companies that manufacture synthetic fertilizer add hazardous waste and radioactive waste to their fertilizers. These extremely dangerous wastes then end up in our food supply or in our yards for our children to play in. July-August 1997, Seattle Times Newspaper.

# Scientists have warned us about the dangers of synthetic chemicals. Dr. Jerome Wiesner has stated that using agricultural chemicals is more dangerous than atomic fallout from a nuclear war. Rachel Carson warned us of many dangers in her famous book "Silent Spring"."

Please, do your research and get informed before making a final decision. There is a lot more information out there and we, as gardeners should be doing whatever we can to do our part in preserving the natural balance of mother nature.

There are reasons why people are having more health problems - weight, allergies, cancers, etc in the last 50 years than ever before.

This is an outright lie and is not supported by any data. Cancer rates are down, the death rate is way down (see today's issue of USAToday). Weight problems are due to people stuffing their face, not chemical fertilizers.

Some of the other points are valid, but when the post starts with such a blantant falsehood, it's difficult to take the rest of it seriously.

I agree, threeducks- that's why I didn't even respond. A fanatic will not listen to reason.

reptilegrrl,

I am far from a fanatic. That is an assumption on your part. Trudi has known me for several years, she knows I have my head on straight.

threeducks,

I never said more people are dying of cancer than ever before. There happens to be better early detection and improved treatments now so I'm not talking about any decline in deaths within the last few years. I'm talking about overall, the several decades as a whole of people getting cancer in the first place. Not a decline in deaths.

Weight problems are due to many factors. It is a fact that refined foods are worse for your body than foods that are not over processed. That the closer an ingredient is to it's original form, the better it is for your body. And there is plenty of health data on ingredients that are highly refined such as "High Fructose Corn Syrup", etc.

Not everyone subscribes to USA Today some use other global news services. Please be specific about the article title and page number or if you can find it at the website, please provide a URL.

"Cancer experts say more people than ever before are now likely to develop the disease at some time, but the chances of survival are also increasing.

Figures highlighted by the Cancer Research Campaign show that the proportion of the population suffering from cancer has risen significantly over the past 20 years.

Four in ten people are now expected to develop cancer, say experts at the charity."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/590100.stm

"Global cancer rates could increase by 50% to 15 million by 2020
GENEVA -- Cancer rates could further increase by 50% to 15 million new cases in the year 2020, according to the World Cancer Report, the most comprehensive global examination of the disease to date. However, the report also provides clear evidence that healthy lifestyles and public health action by governments and health practitioners could stem this trend, and prevent as many as one third of cancers worldwide."

World Health Organization
http://www.who.int

"For a while we thought some key cancer rates were flat or declining, but on further study it turns out they're going (oops) up. This bombshell dropped in 2002 with the publication of a paper innocuously titled "Impact of Reporting Delay and Reporting Error on Cancer Incidence Rates and Trends." The gist: A significant fraction of cases (3 to 12 percent, depending on cancer type) don't get reported promptly to the leading U.S. cancer data registry--in fact, it can take anywhere from 4 to 17 years following initial diagnosis before most (99-plus percent) cancers are counted. The missing cases can make early trend reports misleadingly rosy. Melanoma incidence in white males, for example, was once thought to be easing; now analysts think it's rising 4 percent per year."
Surveillance Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute

"Cancer is now the leading cause of death among teens and young adults after accidents in England. Among this 13 to 24-year-old age group, cancer rates have been increasing at a rate of 1.2 percent per year for the past two decades."
http://www.mercola.com/2004/mar/20/cancer_rates.htm

"Worldwide cancer cases 'double'

Breast and lung cancer incidence has doubled around the world over the last 30 years, a report shows."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4490271.stm

"ALLERGIES - A NEW EPIDEMIC FOR THE 21st CENTURY?

In the last ten years or so, there has been an increase in the prevalence of allergic diseases, mainly in developed countries.

The reason for this is unclear, but most experts believe that increased awareness, better recognition of symptoms, better diagnostic tools and improved understanding of the disease are insufficient to explain the increase. Other factors are likely to be involved."
http://www.nestle.co.uk/Nutrition/NutritionAndHealthArticles/Allergies.htm

"Why do we develop so many allergies?

During the last decades, our environment, home and way of life have clearly been modified. This change allowed allergic diseases to increase."
http://www.stallergenes.com/exp/Allergique/Comprendre/home.cfm

"A survey of over 1 000 schoolchildren found 6% now suffered from asthma, compared to 3% in a similar study 20 years ago."
http://www.hst.org.za/news/20010624

"It has also been reported in the national press, that the NHS cannot cope with the level of allergy patients currently requiring treatment, that allergic conditions have increased 4 fold over the last 20 years and that there is currently a 2 year waiting list for NHS allergy tests."
http://www.allergytest.co.uk/

"According to the Food Allergy & Anaphylaxis Network (FAAN) school nurses nationwide are reporting an increase in students with food allergies, and safety precautions should be taken to protect food-allergic students from reactions."
http://www.news-medical.net/?id=12678

"There are many theories to explain the fact that the incidence of allergy has approximately doubled in the last 20-30 years in almost every country in which it has been studied."
http://www.allergycapital.com.au/Pages/allergy.html

"What is an allergy?

A rise in the number of allergens to which people are exposed. This is due partly to human civilisation over the last 10,000 years and particularly to developments over the last fifty years.
http://www.ich.ucl.ac.uk/factsheets/families/F980279/index.html

"Nutrients. Domestic waste water, agricultural run-off, and industrial effluents contain phosphorus and nitrogen, fertilizer run-off, manure from livestock operations, which increase the level of nutrients in water bodies and can cause eutrophication in the lakes and rivers and continue on to the coastal areas. The nitrates come mainly from the fertilizer that is added to the fields. Excessive use of fertilizers cause nitrate contamination of groundwater, with the result that nitrate levels in drinking water is far above the safety levels recommended. Good agricultural practices can help in reducing the amount of nitrates in the soil and thereby lower its content in the water.

Synthetic organics. Many of the 100 000 synthetic compounds in use today are found in the aquatic environment and accumulate in the food chain. POPs or Persistent organic pollutants, represent the most harmful element for the ecosystem and for human health, for example, industrial chemicals and agricultural pesticides. These chemicals can accumulate in fish and cause serious damage to human health. Where pesticides are used on a large-scale, groundwater gets contaminated and this leads to the chemical contamination of drinking water."
http://edugreen.teri.res.in/explore/water/health.htm

"...elevated nitrate concentrations in water supplies used for drinking water, according to a recently released report by the US Geological Survey (USGS). While elevated concentrations of nitrate in water have been known to cause illness in babies, there is also indirect evidence that they can cause cancer. Because of the increased use of fertilizers worldwide since the 1950s, drinking water derived from aquifers in both countries have seen increased levels of nitrate, a plant nutrient regulated by the Safe Drinking Water Act in the United States and by the Ministry of Water Resources in China."
http://www.sdearthtimes.com/et0402/et0402s22.html

The Threat of Toxic Fertilizer

"The recycling of hazardous industrial wastes into fertilizers introduces several dozen toxic metals and chemicals into the nation's farm, lawn and garden soils, including such well-known toxic substances as lead and mercury. Many crops and plants extract these toxic metals from the soil, increasing the chance of impacts on human health as crops and plants enter the food supply chain. This report documents the highly toxic substances found by testing fertilizers, as well as the strict regulations needed to protect humans and the environment from these toxic hazards.

California Public Interest Research Group (CALPIRG) Charitable Trust and Washingtons Safe Food and Fertilizer tested 29 fertilizers from 12 states 2 for 22 toxic metals. This report documents the results of these fertilizer samples, demonstrates that the problem of toxic fertilizers is widespread, and details concerns with proposed regulations for the practice.

Twenty-nine tested fertilizers contained twenty-two toxic heavy metals. These metals are linked to either ecological or human health hazards. Most noticeable is the wide array of toxic metals that exist in fertilizers.

These results indicate that fertilizers often contain high levels of harmful toxic metals that exceed levels of concern and could violate federal law.

Labeling is inadequate. Because fertilizer labeling laws only require beneficial nutrients, like zinc or phosphate, to be listed, fertilizers are sold directly to the public and farmers without warnings or information that informs consumers about the presence and quantity of toxic metals. Also, there is no indication on fertilizer labels as to whether or not the fertilizers we tested have been further treated to meet federal land disposal standards.

Inadequate labeling requirements mean consumers do not have the necessary information to make informed decisions about products at the time that they are purchased to best protect the health of their families.

Each of these metals is suspected or known to be toxic to humans and the environment by the U.S. EPA. Nine metals, like arsenic and lead, are known or suspected to cause cancer and ten metals, like mercury, are linked to developmental effects. Three of the tested metals lead, cadmium and mercury are also persistent bioaccumulative toxins (PBTs). PBTs persist for long periods of time in the environment some indefinitely and they can accumulate in the tissues of humans and wildlife, increasing the long-term health risks at even low levels of exposure. These three metals cause cancer, birth defects, or reproductive problems.

TOXIC FERTILIZERS THREATEN HUMAN HEALTH
The toxic substances found in the tested fertilizers have been linked to adverse human health impacts. The metals found in these fertilizers are known or suspected carcinogens, reproductive and developmental, liver, and blood toxicants. For example, beryllium is a suspected carcinogen, chromium and arsenic are known to cause cancer and barium can cause kidney and lung damage.

Children are most susceptible to the toxic effects of most metals, especially lead, which has been the subject of intense government efforts to reduce lead exposure to children. Products like fertilizer are of great concern as children spend more time on or near the ground and are often exposed to ground level substances through hand-to-mouth behavior.

Labeling is inadequate. Fertilizer labeling laws do not require listing toxic metals like lead, cadmium and chromium that are not essential to plant and crop growth. Without listing all the ingredients present in fertilizers, consumers cannot make decisions that will protect their soils, crops and plants, or their health.

Existing standards for toxic metals in fertilizers are inadequate for protecting our soils, crops, plants, water, air and health.

These standards are not risk- or health-based standards. Using these standards for fertilizers can result in unacceptable health risks because of unanticipated uptake by plants, migration of toxic substances to groundwater more easily than would occur from a lined landfill, generation of airborne dusts, or exposure to humans, including children and farmworkers. Land Disposal Restrictions are inadequate for regulating the application of hazardous wastes, via fertilizers, to farms, lawns and gardens or for use as animal feed."
http://www.pirg.org/toxics/reports/wastelands/WasteLands.pdf

Violet, an assumption is made without information. You've already provided me with plenty of information about yourself; your recent post is just another example. For instance, your bit about processed foods: it has nothing to do with synthetic fertlizers. I can conclude that you are not very well educated about the subject at hand, and that you are somewhat hysterical in mien.

I actually AM a health care professional, and have been for over a decade. The reason more people are likely to get cancer these days is that people are living longer. Almost all elderly people will get some form of cancer, as their cellular DNA becomes corrupted.

Now, please, can it. Unless you have something intelligent to say, you're wasting my bandwidth.

here here, reptilegrrl :)

really the point is, everything in moderation. there's no point in getting all worked up about tools someone else is using in thier garden......don't use it in yours if you diagree with it. and in terms of toxins, there are trace amounts of arsenic in apple seeds and peach pits, and sometimes small amounts of lead in candle wicks, but we all still eat fruit and shop at yankee candle. EVERYTHING can be bad for you if you look hard enough.

personally, i tend to organic, but will spike my veggies with dilute synthetic fertilizers from time to time. my soil is very, very low in nitrogen, and i regularly apply blood meal and compost to balance it out, but i wouldn't get a single ear of corn if i didn't give it a little boost. eventually, the garden shouldn't need it but until then........everything in moderation.

I agree with Violet. I too, am a health professional and there are more people(especially young people) developing more cancer and chonic diseases. And there are plenty of studies out there that show environmental links.

Also studies done on the nutrient content of food shows that during the last 50 years, our veggies and fruit have become less nutrient packed. The studies indicate that this is due to the fact that the N_P_K are being returned to the soil in adequate amounts by chemical fertilizers, just not all the micro nutrients that we need for healthy bodies(the plants do not necessarily need them to grow). We need more types of nutrients to grow than plants.

It is true that the nutrients in chemical fertilizers are just as effective as those in organics. Its just that it is not complete.

In organic gardening, before any nutrient in the soil is used by the plant, it must be available in a form the plant can absorb. This is done by bacterial action. The organic nutrients are first used by microscopic organisms and the waste that is produced feeds our plants. Adding chemicals kills not only earthworms, it kills the microorganisms that allow us to garden organically. This is how "dead soil" develops. I am sure that an occasional use of chemicals is not going to destroy your soil, but my thinking is why at all if you are going organic.

I know that there are many organic gardeners out there that insist that only compost is needed to garden organically, and I am sure plants grow just fine with that. But compost is a soil amendment, not a fertilizer.
Everytime I harvest vegetables or fruits from my raised beds,I add a compost and a tiny bit of alfafa meal(nitrogen), rock phosphate(Phosphorous) and Kelp meal(potassium and trace elements). I've been doing this for quite a few years now and my yields improved, my plants are larger, and I have no trouble with diseases or insects. I learned from not only what I have read, but what I do, that healthy soil and growing organically makes a difference.

Hope some of this information helps.

I agree with Violet. I too, am a health professional and there are more people(especially young people) developing more cancer and chonic diseases. And there are plenty of studies out there that show environmental links.

Let's avoid the inevitable back and worth that goes on in these kind of discussions. Please post a reference to an article(s) in a refereed medical journal that supports your statement.

threeducks,
You do the research. I do mine. I read medical journals provided by physicans. I take continuing education courses though local colleges that relate to my profession. I attend inservices. I also attended horticulture classes at a college.

There are AMA sites to read by doing a search, etc.... If you choose to dispute what someone writes, you come up with the info,
You are the one disputing the info given. You prove your point. To discredit a person, you need facts. Where is your proof that what Violet and I posted is wrong?

By the way, weight problems is not all due to people"stuffing their faces" as you so rudely put it. Where is your proof? You want proof, prove your point first.

Soil lover, you and Violet are the ones making claims: back them up! If you can't, then your claims look like hysteria. If you are a health care professional, then you know that the person making the claim must support that claim. That's how science works. When a new pathogen or treatment is found, the discoverer must provide proof of its existence or efficacy; the public is not responsible for proving him wrong, but he is responsible for proving himself right!

I agree with you with regard to weight, in that there are many factors influencing someone's weight. As yet, however, no one has proven that synthetic fertilizers are one of those factors.

reptilegrrl,
No poster on these sites gives references to every bit of data they pass on. Just as I wrote before, you want to dispute what others are saying--YOU find the references to back up your argument. You are making the claims that the data posted is not accurate. I doubt if anyone else reading Violet's post or mine claims "hysteria", just you.
So if you do not appreciate or believe what others write you, have two options.

1) Prove what was written is wrong with data to back that up. (Thats your job)
2)Ignore what others write

I can see from this thread, you were not looking for a discussion, but looking for someone to back your opinion on how to garden. And someone disagreed with you. I doubt if anyone would say Violet or myself has a vendetta against you and wrote "false information" Perhaps this is the wrong forum to participate in if you choose to berate others and cannot respectfully disagree with you --find data to back up your claims.

...and the point about claiming "synthetic fertilzers cause weight gain"... you took it wrong. Violet is amking a broad statement about how the environment effects our heath. That includes using chmeicals. You are twisting her words when I feel you really knew what Violet meant. Its a poor attempt to discredit and disrespect another poster on this site.

threeducks,
You do the research. I do mine. I read medical journals provided by physicans. I take continuing education courses though local colleges that relate to my profession. I attend inservices. I also attended horticulture classes at a college.

Then it should be easy for you to find such an article, if one exists. If what you say is indeed a "fact", then you must have already collected such references from which you formed your opinions, right? The fact that you have not posted a reference only shows that you are simply posting your opinions as if they were facts.

There are AMA sites to read by doing a search, etc.... If you choose to dispute what someone writes, you come up with the info,
You are the one disputing the info given.

You said it was a fact, I say prove it. You are intitled to whatever opinions you want. What are you working so hard NOT to prove something you feel so strongly about?

You are making the claims that the data posted is not accurate.

No, I am asking you to post some data. No data has been posted, so I can't say whether it's accurate or not.

It's pretty clear that you don't have any data to back up your claims. I am sure that if you did, you would post it.

I agree with soil lover and violet. I'm confused why some are getting so defensive. I was under the impression the person who originated this thread wanted opinions. That's what was presented. People don't need to be rude. A lifechanging book for me has been "Nourishing Traditions" by Sally Fallon.

The only people getting defensive, ironically, are soil_lover and violet.

I wanted opinions, but I don't want opinions based on claptrap. Something being an opinion does not automatically make it true or valid.

What I want now is for this thread to die. This thread is the one that finally, finally convinced me to stop posting questions in GW forums. The majority of my experience on GW has been unpleasant- a simple post elicits a million rude, condescending, insulting responses and it's a waste of my time and energy.