CIS-Uncaster Famine, Saturday, April 12,1980
Pro’s and con’s of organic farming
By ELEANOR BLAKELY
Penn State University
UNIVERSITY PARK -
Pick up any magazine at
your local news stand, and
you’ll find some mention of
“today’s changing culture.”
Many Americans '•re said to
be resisting the establish
ment.
Indeed, many people are
turning back in time to
rediscover a simpler, less
stressful, and more basic
lifestyle.
Many Americans, young
and old, are seeking a closer
harmony with a “natural,”
chemical-free environment.
One channel that many use
to demonstrate their new
rebellion is through an in
vigorating interest in
organic foods.
Their purpose seems to be
to return to the lifestyle
Mother Nature intended for
us to follow.
The new interest in
organic gardening is a reac
tion to the exposes of the
deleterious effects of
pesticides on animal life and
the ecosystem. The possible
damage to babies from high
amounts of nitrate in food is
another real, and emotional,
issue that is linked to
agricultural practices.
All chemical food ad
ditives are shunned because
certain ones have been found
to be hazardous to human
health and have been banned
by the government.
But what is this “organic
food cult?” Just because a
food is labeled “natural,”
should we buy it for our
families because we believe
it is more nutritious?
How does it differ from the
food we traditionally see on
our dinner table?
What is “organic” food?
Technically speaking, all
food is organic since it is
derived from living
organisms.
“Organic” is a branch of
chemistry dealing with
carbon-based molecules that
are synthesized by living
things. All foods in nature
contain carbon this, all
are organic. Nutrients such
as carbohydrate, protein,
fat, and vitamins are all
composed of carbon
coiitammg molecules
More descriptive terms
referring to the foods that
organic enthusiasts consume
are “organically-grown,” or
‘ ‘ organically-processed. ’ ’
They refer to products ob
tained.
without chemical fer
tilizer;
without fumigants,
fungicides, or herbicides,
without pesticides applied
for insect control;
without preservatives, col
oring agents, or any syn
thetic food additive;
fertilized only with organic
matter (non-manufactured)
and natural rock minerals.
Cattle, sheep, pigs, and
poultry must be grazed on
organically-grown pasture
or fed organically-grown
feed. Animals grown for
meat must not be treated
with antibiotics, hormones,
or vaccines.
Acceptable organic fer
tilizers include dried cow
manure, compost,
limestone, sulfur, ground
granite rock, and rock
phosphate.
Any or all may be used,
since no legal definition of
“an organic fertilizer” ex
ists; and only recently has a
government agency begun to
discuss the term’s usage on
food labels.
Consumer attitudes
A 1978 survey showed that
61 percent of the pubhc
believed that natural foods
were better for you this
number was up by 19 percent
from 1974. Twenty-eight per
cent said these foods were
“different,” but did not
claim that “natural” meant
more nutritious.
The belief in the benefits of
a natural diet has spread na
tionwide. When asked what
foods were natural, only pro
ducts like fresh orange juice,
fresh green beans, and
mushrooms were strongly
agreed on as being natural
foods.
Although no change of
state would have occurred,
frozen orange juice and
frozen beans were definitely
off the “natural” list. Two
thirds of those interviewed
felt that pasteurization,
homogenization, and
vitamin additives made
milk, a product traditionally
believed to be “the natural
food,” ineligible.
The orgamc food move
ment has become “big
business” and is being view
ed with a wary eye. Some ex
perts say it is leading people
to distrust the nation’s food
supply. Others say the move
ment is useful and has
helped to increase public
awareness of chemicals that
have become regular ingre
dients of processed foods.
The public has begun to read
food labels.
A farm magazine has
published articles analyzing
the potential for orgamc far
ming. They concluded that
orgamc farming is possible
on a small scale as long as
prices remain high.
But there is no guarantee
that the prices of organic
foods will remain high. Fur
thermore, chances are great
that the public may lose in
terest because of high prices
and often fraud and
misrepresentation
Processed toons are pro
vided for the consumer on
the basis of convenience,
quality, and sensory appeal.
Most processed foods are
priced higher than food in
the raw state, but many are
willing to pay that price in
order to have their foods
premixed, precut,
preseasoned, and precooked.
However, not all processed
foods are more expensive.
Some are actually more
economical to buy already
fully prepared than to make
them “fromscratch.”
To lower the high cost of
the national food supply, the
volume of production must
be increased through
economics of scale on the
farm and large-scale pro
cessing plants. Waste is
reduced by processing,
which increases shelf life.
Canned and frozen fruits,
processed vegetables out-of
season, and baking mixes
are usually less expensive
than their fresh or un
processed counterparts,
even if these are available.
The organic food business
is a small scale operation
due to the constraints impos
ed by all “all-natural” con
cept.
Thus costs and prices
seem likely to remain quite
high People who wonder
about the possibility of adap
ting organic gardening in
their own home garden
should remember that it has
some advantages and many
limitations, depending on
one’s interpretation.
Nutrients in soils
Climate and location
where grown, harvest tune,
storage, handling, variety,
and genetic variable are all
strong determinants of the
food value of plants.
As plants grow, they draw
upon the natural resources
of the soil and take in
nutrients, changing them to
a form they can use for
growth.
If a soil is deficient in one
or more nutrients, the plant
cannot grow well, but its con
tent, such as protein, fat,
carbohydrate, and vitamins,
could be identical to that of a
flourishing plant grown in
rich soil. A deficient soil will
result m lower yield, but the
plant will not necessarily be
less nutritious.
Scientific evidence shows
no difference m nutrient
composition between
organically-grown produce
and that grown undei con
ventional methods using in
organic chemicals.
It is universally accepted
that organic materials serv
ing as fertilizers, such as
manure, compost, and
humus maintain organic
matter content in soil. They
improve the physical
characteristics of soils, such
as “tilth” or “looseness” of
the soil, and help aerate the
ground for good root respira
tion. They also increase the
soil’s capacity to hold water
and nutrients.
As plants grow and are
harvested, they remove a
portion of the soil’s
nutrients. Plants obtain
nutrients from the at
mospheie, water, and soil.
Soils deficient in nutrients do
not provide or release them
at an adequate rate to allow
for efficient plant growth.
So most soils require some
type of supplementation: for
maximum yield and/or
quality what has been
removed from the soil by
plants must be replenished.
At least 16 chemical
elements are essential to
plant growth. These are:
carbon - sulfur - hydrogen -
iron - oxygen - manganese -
nitrogen - copper
phosphorus - boron -
potassium - zinc - calcium -
molybdenum - magnesium
and-chlorine.
Most non-manufactured
fertilizers do not provide suf
ficient amounts of this
growth-stimulating nutrient.
Another point of concern
with the strict use of only
organic fertilizers is that
mtrogen becomes available
for plants at different rates
depending on its source and
various other conditions
such as weather and
temperature.
Urea, a pure organic
nitrogen fertilizer, am
monium mtrate which has
one half of the nitrogen m
organic form, and am
monium sulfate which has
all nitrogen in organic form,
are much more rapidly
available to plants than non
manufactured nitrogen
containing fertilizer.
For instance, in the same
period of tune, chemical fer
tilizers release 98 per cent of
the nitrogen, while cow
manure fertilizers release
only 50 per cent.
soluble state in order to
used by plants. The nutrients'*
of most commercial fer
tilizers are already in the
form most available for up
take by the plant. Non
manufactured organic fer
tilizers must be converted by
soil micoorgamsms into in
organic compounds.
However, some of the
nutrients such as nitrogen
and heavy metals, can be
taken up in organic form.
Once these are made
available to and absorbed by
the plant, their source
whether from animal waste
or manufactured fertilizer
cannot be identified.
Is it more nutritious?
The claim of organic en
thusiasts that “natural” fer
tilizers manure and com-
(Turn to Page C2O)
a