Is there a point to buying organic?

[Evo]

Evo,

Why is it that you need to attack me personally? You have done so for years and quite frankly I am growing tired of it.

Correcting you is not attacking you.

You could not even properly interpret the article you linked, yet you claim to know my level of knowledge from my post.

What, that I called it an organic seed company and not consortium? It had been a while since I had read the name of the group, and what does the group's name have to do with anything? The fact is that your post showed that you had no idea of the study that is being done that you somehow got the "increased flavanoids" info from. You told someone that plants didn't absorb pesticides through their roots, misinformation, I proved you wrong.

You don't know whether or not I knew about systemic pesticides, you don't know if I was aware of the possible connection between available nitrogen and flavonoid levels.

See above. And you didn't know about the connection because you said

Exactly how does reduced nitrogen content in the soil increase flavinoids?

And who (besides you) is suggesting that decreasing the amount of nitrogen in the soil is organic?

According to your post, you had no clue.

Ban me if you like, but quite frankly you are about the worst moderator on this forum! You are constantly making absolute statements that are factually incorrect.

I'm afraid it is you that has been incorrect, which I have shown in this thread. If you don't like to be corrected then check your facts before posting.

 

[Skyhunter]

Correcting you is not attacking you.

Calling me dishonest is a personal attack.

What, that I called it an organic seed company and not consortium? It had been a while since I had read the name of the group, and what does the group's name have to do with anything?

Nothing. Except that the link you provided did not even mention a seed company or consortium.

My guess was that you were referring to the Mitchell presentation, though it was not mentioned in the article.

The fact is that your post showed that you had no idea of the study that is being done that you somehow got the "increased flavanoids" info from.

I based my statement on an interview by Kaffka. I don't recall him mentioning nitrogen, he posited that it may be the plants natural response to increased threat exposure. I remember now reading about organic -vs- inorganic nitrogen, but what stuck in my mind was the defense mechanisms of the plant.

You told someone that plants didn't absorb pesticides through their roots, misinformation, I proved you wrong.

I did not disagree and stood corrected.

I was thinking of insecticides, a sub group of pesticides, which are primarily applied directly to the plant. The major point that seems to be lost here is that overspray, not runoff, is more of an issue for organic farmers.

See above. And you didn't know about the connection because you said According to your post, you had no clue.

Your statement was factually incorrect. My understanding, supported by the researcher's statements is that the connection is primarily to organic sources of nitrogen, not absolute soil content.

Asking for clarification does not necessarily imply ignorance.

Your evidence supports my statement that organic tomatoes are higher in flavonoids than their conventional counterparts.

I'm afraid it is you that has been incorrect, which I have shown in this thread. If you don't like to be corrected then check your facts before posting.

I admit when I am wrong. I often make mistakes, get confused, or simply misunderstand. I try not to compound my initial error by denying it. However, in this case I feel that you are being overly corrective without fully understanding the facts.

 

[Evo]

Calling me dishonest is a personal attack.

I pointed out what you had said, and then you posted like you knew it all along. Do I have to keep reposting that for you?

My guess was that you were referring to the Mitchell presentation, though it was not mentioned in the article.

Yes it was mentioned in the article I posted.

My post #21

The Answer in the Dirt

The increased flavonoid levels, Kaffka suspects, could stem from the difference in how organic and conventional tomatoes are fertilized.

On Kaffka's plot, the conventionally grown tomatoes get commercial fertilizer made with soluble inorganic nitrogen, a form of nitrogen the plants can take up very quickly. The organic tomatoes get nitrogen from manure and composted cover crops. These organic materials have to be broken down by the microbes in the soil before the nitrogen is released to the plants.

"It takes time," Kaffka says, and the nitrogen is "not instantaneously available."

With limited nitrogen, the organic plants may grow slower, says Alyson Mitchell, a food chemist at UC Davis. When this happens, she says, the plant "has more time to allocate its resources toward making secondary plant metabolites" such as flavonoids.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90914182

I showed that the research said the increase in flavonoids was due to the nitrogen. Do you disagree?

I was thinking of insecticides, a sub group of pesticides, which are primarily applied directly to the plant. The major point that seems to be lost here is that overspray, not runoff, is more of an issue for organic farmers.

But that's not what you said, and that's the point.

You do understand that pesticides are applied directly to the plants, not absorbed through the roots. Pesticide runoff is not a problem for organic crops. Over spray on the other hand is.

When I corrected you you came back with this.

Systemic pesticides can be applied to the soil, seed, or sprayed on the leaf. Unlike fertilizers though, they are not applied as liberally, and are less likely to create a runoff problem. I did not mean to suggest that it is never a problem, just that over spray is the major pesticide issue for organic growers, primarily because pesticides kill the beneficial fauna and flora that organic growers cultivate. My point is that pesticide runoff is a weak argument against buying organic.

Your statement was factually incorrect. My understanding, supported by the researcher's statements is that the connection is primarily to organic sources of nitrogen, not absolute soil content.

Not according to Mitchell.

Mitchell's team say the finding can be explained by the availability of nitrogen. Flavonoids are produced as a defence mechanism that can be triggered by nutrient deficiency. The inorganic nitrogen in conventional fertiliser is easily available to plants and so, the team suggests, the lower levels of flavonoids are probably caused by overfertilisation.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19526114.900-organic-tomatoes-have-more-antioxidants.html

Which makes what I said correct as the current research stands.

Do you still disagree with the nitrogen/flavonoid connection? It seems to me that we agree on this.

 

[Evo]

Locked pending moderation.