Reply to comment
Why is this study on Science Blog?
August 8, 2008 by Anonymous, 1 year 15 weeks ago
Comment id: 31433
Reply
About us
Science Blog was started in August 2002. It lives, breathes and eats press releases from research organizations around the globe. Most of what you read here are press releases from the outfits named in the stories themselves. Got a news story you think belongs here? Let's talk. The other half of the equation is blog posts from readers like you. So if you have an interest in science, please register and join others like you in an ongoing, vibrant dialog about what makes the world tick. Meantime, please take a minute to read our Privacy Policy and Site Disclaimer.Recommended
Andrew Sullivan Dan Sullivan Doug Arellanes Emmanuelle Richard Faith Sullivan Fred Bortz Heather Havrilesky Henry Copeland Kate Sullivan Ken Layne lagreenbean.com LAist.com Maggie Sullivan Matt Welch NewYorkology Opinion L.A. Ron Kaye Slashdot Steve Elzer & Family TheNewsroom.org Thor Garcia Tony Pierce Wonkette OlderThanks CNET for naming Science Blog one of your Blog 100!
First of all, this is a very misleading title for the content below. The study measured “major and trace elements†and equated that with “nutritional contentâ€. Sorry. Thank you for playing but there’s more manure than what was put in the field. Proteins, carbohydrates, vitamins, amino acids and antioxidants are recognized components of nutrition, but their study didn’t measure these so I don’t think they are justified making claims about “nutritionâ€.
I’m starting a fruit business and I’m and learning that there are many types of organic growing--and the crop, type of soil and style and diligence of the farmer all have bearing on yield and overall quality of the end product. So, were they doing mono or polyculture? Till/no till? Subirrigation? Cover crops, tillage or mulch for weed management? What was the previous crop? More importantly, who did the organic growing? The organic farmer or someone else?
I also have a BS in science--about half in biology--and have gotten some of my best lessons from these guys. Believe me, until you’ve spent a few evenings listening to successful organic farmers describing the 6-8 crop rotation that each has developed and how each rotation contributes to the timing and quantity of nutrients for the next crop, you can’t possibly have enough respect for how smart they are.
By the way, Dr. Baylis, there is a lot of evidence that shows the yields of organic crops to be comparable to their “conventional†counterparts and when the costs of the inputs are considered, they actually cost less to produce. Please stop repeating what you’ve been told and look.
http://scienceblog.com/community/older/2005/8/200507248.shtml
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2351
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080325101134.htm
Last, in its time DDT was “extensively tested and stringently regulated†and 40 years later there are still measurable quantities in the environment. But then again, this study wouldn’t have considered DDT as an impact on “nutritiion†since it isn’t a major or trace element.
Frankly, I’m surprised to find a study of this quality on Scienceblog.