Interesting research on organic versus non-organic growing

[eirish]

I also believe that if you put 10 opposing sections of scientists up against each other using the same research, that they could make it support their own views and convince you and me - all ten of them and ten views.

I am a scientist, and I don't consider convincing people of my own views to be my job. Frankly, most of the scientists I know are rubbish at that anyway! Convincing people is the job of politicians, activists, advertisers, etc.

A group of us are trialling some other methods and pooling our information.

That is exactly what scientists do! Without skepticism, without testing, it stops being science and becomes dogma instead. *off my own soapbox...*

I buy some organics, largely to avoid sulphites, which I know affect me badly. With fruit and veg, I tend to try to buy local over organic, but it's always nice to get organic as well. I'm hoping to garden more-or-less organically, much as I try to avoid harsh/irritating/dangerous cleaning products and toiletries. Mostly 'cause I'm a sensitive flower. But I try not to get too dogmatic about it.

[Feral007]

Funnily enough I didn't have any problems with sluggies last year - so didn't need to try and get the bottle shop to sell me just one bottle I don't know if wine will do the slugs in or if its just the beer. Maybe I should start a thread about that?

We still eat and use things that aren't organic as such. But, I get sick of seeing so many things that advertising tells us we need to have. I'm caught between the ability to afford food, and the wish that the food I eat and feed people wasn't modified or sprayed within an inch (or 2.5cm) of it's life!
I rather suspect they'd like to modify my brain so I didn't think this way

[planetologist]

if we could trust the companies or the regulators, I'd welcome GM with open arms.

I completely agree; if beer tasted like wine I would drink it with pleasure.

[Feral007]

I completely agree; if beer tasted like wine I would drink it with pleasure.

But, Planetologist would the slugs still drink the beer if it tasted like wine?

Eirish, we could share the soapbox. It's not the scientific data that I have a problem with. It's what they do with the data afterwards; you can just use part of it. Or in some cases like our stats at work the filters are so narrow that many things which would make a difference to the data are filtered out.

I'm afraid it's the trust for who is setting up the studies, and who is putting out their view of what the data means. I'm not going to be able to read huge scientific studies and make much sense of them. But I don't have total trust in all those who put the stats to practical use.

I should have said '10 statisticians' - now I'm going to have the statisticians after me I worked for a statistician once and she bemoaned the fact that if she took a job in the private sector she may be influenced to try and make the stats 'useful'. So it's only some of the statisticians even. I'm going to hide now

Our information gathering is very subjective and not for consumption without thought by anyone who is planning to use the methods. We are just looking at the locality/climate situations. It's not scientific. But we acknowledge it is skewed and that it is just collating ideas for people to look further at.

[eirish]

I'd be honoured to share the soapbox with you.

The difficulty is that nature is complicated and messy and chaotic. We don't have all the data yet and we may never have all the data. Information gathering is *always* "very subjective and not for consumption without thought" - a large part of scientific experimentation consists of analysing errors in the data collection methods (bit of a shock to first year undergraduates, let me tell you! ). But there's always going to be human bias in the interpretation of the data, which can be a good thing as well as a bad thing. Unfortunately we do have to act on conclusions drawn from incomplete data. I guess the best thing to do is to keep an open and questioning mind and be willing to revise theories when new data comes along.

Our information gathering is very subjective and not for consumption without thought by anyone who is planning to use the methods. We are just looking at the locality/climate situations. It's not scientific. But we acknowledge it is skewed and that it is just collating ideas for people to look further at.

See, now, that sounds like proper science to me - not the idealised version that many people seem to believe in and that's often taught in schools, but the kind that's practised by sound and thoughtful scientists.

[VirginVegGrower]

I've bought organic meat, milk, etc. for years, mainly because it tastes so much better. Mass produced bog standard stuff tastes like it's full of water to me. I grow organically, as in I don't spray, tend to feed using natural feeds. I try to care for our planet in this little bit by using as few chemicals as I can, but it doesn't rule my life. It's more a taste thing and knowing I'm giving the kids the best I can.

[sir david]

Hi folks
I try to grow organically, avoid coated seeds and eat ethically , here in France we have the Bicoop an organic wholesalers that supply shops all over the country (. Plus they do amazing sheep yoghurt ;-) )
I wonder how many of us are organic here on this site and if their are enough of us to suggest to "Grow your own " it might be worth there while refusing to carry adverts from Beyer and others promoting ( insert insult of your choice ) and target more people interested in going organic .

David
Zone sans pesticides

[Two_Sheds]

I think we do better to change attitudes "from within", as it were. People tend to switch off their hearing if you come on all organic ... a softly softly approach often works better.