Thanks for the clarification; that’s obviously what I meant. I’ve got no interest in joining the sort of debate Blake obviously prefers, but I’m happy to discuss organic agriculture with folks who behave civilly.
Organic agriculture is not well-defined as a scam; as Cecil says, it may act most effectively as a symbolic action to spur farmers to use fewer pesticides.
Daniel
The purported benefits of organic farming have nothing to do with the nutrition of the food, it is that it doesn’t produce 100,000 gallon lagoons of manure that is useless for fertilization, doesn’t poison waterways, doesn’t treat animals as meat units that don’t feel pain or have natural needs,etc.
Cheap food isn’t cheap, you are paying for it in innumerable ways. Agriculture as it is practiced in most of the U.S.A. is completely unsustainable and is only maintained through government subsidies and price controls.
One could argue that without chemicals, there wouldn’t be so many of us, which would be a good thing.
Ann Coulter called, she wants her stupid post back.
I am amazed that you are apparently ignorant of the fact that capsicum is a fruit.
As for what LHoD meant to say I really couldn’t speculate. I can only comment what he did say, which is patently untrue. Capsicum is not an insecticde, nor is he able to name any naturalinsecticides which are “healthful”[sic].
I don’t doubt you could argue that, but it’s a silly argument.
What you are arguing is that by forcing people into subsistence farming in constant fear of famine, reducing the life expectancy and decreasing the standard of living that will be environmentally beneficial and somehow lead to people being more conservative with their production systems.
Of course all the evidence tells us that exactly the opposite is true. People with the low standards of living, high child mortality and unreliable food supply your proposal would accompany are forced to exploit their land to the limit of their ability.
Fewer people but far more farmland and far more degradation.
Three things I was taught in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s by people who have actually studied such things scientifically in studies funded by agencies without a stake in the outcome:
Only to the botanically challenged, dude.
Here, I’ll fight a little ignorance and help you look it up.
If that’s too much a task for you, try reading Wiki on Capsicum.
The fruit of Capsicum species is actually a berry. See, it says so right here in these notes on fruit types for Integrative Biology 335:
Pepper plants themselves are often called Capsicums, because that’s their genus.
The fruits of capsicums are called berries, or more commonly peppers.
Next time, try to know of what you speak before saying anything.
As has been mentioned before in this thread, ‘organic’ farming is inefficient and a poor use of the limited resource called land. That’s not to say there isn’t a place for it, for those that can afford it, but it isn’t the solution to the problems facing mankind with regards to feeding a growing population. IMO encouraging third world farmers to farm ‘organically’ should be a crime, yet that is exactly what is happening at the moment.
Conventional farming is far from unsustainable, as technology improves agriculture will continue, this has been happening since man started cultivating crops instead of hunting and gathering. What will have to happen at some point is that agribusiness will have to find a way to cope with dwindling supplies of fossil fuels, whether that is through a combination of alternative energy and GM crops or something else entirely, I don’t know. But we’re unlikely to see a shift towards ‘organic’ farming as anything other than a niche market, infact it would be a disaster if that were to happen.
Ofcourse, I didn’t mention any of that in my post.
What I was talking about was the health claims, which are certainly made (ever watch Jamie Oliver’s ‘School Dinners’ or ‘Dr’ Gillian McKeith’s ‘You are what you eat’?). The health claims play off the back of the ‘natural=healthy & artificial=unhealthy’ meme which is so prevalent in our scientifically illiterate society.
With regards to your animal rights claim, it is perfectly possible to be an ethical meat farmer without resorting to ‘organic’ principles. I personally would prefer my meat to come from such places. My experience has been that organic meat is currently the prefered thing in my kitchen because it tends to come from smaller herds, and the farmers and butchers who tend to have less financial constraints (people are willing to pay a premium) do things like hang carcasses for longer (a properly aged steak is a beautiful thing) and use superior feedstock.
As for fruit and veg, I prefer to buy ‘Fair Trade’ wherever possible.
Squink I have no idea what your point is here. Are you denying that there is fruit that is commonly referred to as a capsicum? I just posted one link that established that fact but if you remain ignorant then simply say so.
A straight answer please: are you challenging my statement that capsicum is a common name for fruit?
If you are I will gladly provide any number of references to fight your ignorance.
If you are not then can you tell us just exactly what your point is? I am well aware of what type of fruit a capsicum is. That does not make it any less a fruit you realise?
You seem to be arguing that because cherry is a berry it can not be a fruit. Bizarro stuff.
Of course, you mean prunus, the genus, rather than cherry, the name of the fruit; and by prunus, you may mean almond, which is also of the genus prunus.
Perhaps some folk somewhere call the fruit of the pepper plant ‘capsicums’, but it’s sloppy bit of slang if they do.
Squink can we have a straight answer please: are you challenging my statement that capsicum is a common name for fruit?
If you are I will gladly provide any number of references to fight your ignorance.
If you are not then can you tell us just exactly what your point is? I am well aware of what type of fruit a capsicum is. That does not make it any less a fruit you realise?
You seem to be arguing that because cherry is a berry it can not be a fruit. Bizarro stuff.
Cite!
Since this is GQ you will of course be able to provide a reference for this claim. Won’t you? :rolleyes:
Nah, you’ve played your little game here long enough.
Google Fight Results,capsicums: 143,000 results
red/green/etc peppers: 57 results
bell peppers: 5,340,000 results
sweet peppers: 10,800,000 results
green peppers: 17,400,000 results
red peppers: 31,800,000 results
peppers: 46,800,000 resultsnot that Google Fight results tell us anything, but…
New world plant, why not use the new world name?
CMC fnord!
Goddamn it!
Blake is arguing in his typically unhelpful way, and he’s certainly not explaining this clearly, but bell peppers - and only heatless ones, as far as I’ve heard - are quite commonly referred to in Commonwealth countries as “capsicum”, just like they call zucchinis “courgettes” and eggplants “aubergines”. I know, I know, crazy shit, but that is what the word “capsicum” is liable to bring up if you ask people who speak certain English dialects.
I think this started as a legitimate misunderstanding of LHoD’s post (which I think is incorrect anyway.) Depending on where Blake is from, the word “capsicum” might not bring to mind any particular chemical at all, particularly since “capsicum” doesn’t contain capsaicin.
And Blake, rather than getting argumentative and demanding cites and generally losing your shit, you might have explained it honestly, since I doubt you’re unaware that such usage is not worldwide and you did not put yourself out to explain what the word “capsicum” represents to you.
I think the important point here is that I made sattement that was factualy correct.
In response Squink made a statemntthatwas factuallyincorrect andf ignorant. He then tried to cover that up by making up more ignorant nonsense about it being slag.
When asked to present evidence he then ran for cover.
I stand by everything I said. Everyhting I have posted in this thread is factually correct. The same can not be said for Squink’s lame attempts at arguing against it, which are nothing but ignorant nonsense.
Now that we have fought his ignorance on that point we might be able to work on the rest.
He never argued that a “berry” is not a “fruit”, contrary to your suggestion, if you reread the thread. Obviously both he and LHoD don’t know what the word “capsicum” means in some parts of the world, but you could have explained a bit more patiently than you did. It’s not always about right and wrong; sometimes it’s useful to forego an opportunity to be right and make the other person wrong by explaining the matter.
Getting in an argument over the name of a vegetable seems silly to me, and particularly so when you could have simply explained what “capsicum” means in your dialect.
First google hit:
http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/med-aro/factsheets/CAPSICUM_PEPPER.html
From that page: "The level of pungency of the Capsicum species depends upon the concentration of capsaicinoids, primarily of capsaicin, in the fruit. "
I think this whole thing started over the claim that capsaicin was a naturally occuring insecticide.
I don’t know if it is an insecticide, but I think it might be sprayed on grains to prevent rodents from eating them.
To clear it up: I incorrectly called capsaicin capsicum, but I do not believe that anyone misunderstood my post based on my malapropism, and I refuse to debate with folks who play gotcha games.
I did not call it an insecticide: I called it a “pest-deterrent,” which is accurate.
At any rate, that’s beside the point. My point is that I reject a particular argument:
I will accept this argument when the logical chain is connected: anti-organic-agriculture folks need to demonstrate that specific “natural pesticides” occurring in commonly-eaten produce items are harmful at the levels in which they are normally eaten. They need to demonstrate further than the use of artificial pesticides allows or results in a reduction of these natural pesticides to safe levels.
Otherwise, the claim is specious.
Note that I am not hereby declaring that artificial pesticides are harmful; while I suspect that they are, I don’t have the science at hand to argue that case. I am simply saying that suggestions that organic agriculture may be more harmful than conventional agriculture are, on this particular front, baseless.
Daniel
Obviously, I need to say this again: Go back and read the paragraph you were responding to. After doing that, pull out one single solitary fact that you can refute with cites. And while you’re at it, read about the nitrogen cycle.
That was my point. I didn’t say squat about whether there’s enough naturally-occurring nitrogen for the entire world. I didn’t say “organic is good.” I said only that I can use crop rotation to grow alfalfa, beans, and corn without adding any nitrogen fertilizer to my fields. That statement, despite your protestations, is 100% true.
I’d like to see a cite for that, Blake. First, show me how decreasing yields of crops by 50% would decrease our production of fish, free-range cattle, and other non-crop foods. Then, show me how decreasing those yields in developed countries would affect the production of crops in countries that currently use little or no artificial fertilizer. Then, when you’re done translating that crop yield into an overall percentage reduction in food, you can provide me a citation that demonstrates how 80% of the world starves to death. I know, I’m being facetious here. I don’t expect you to actually research an answer.
Sheesh, Blake. Stop trying to read between the lines and put words in my mouth. Read exactly what Philster said, and exactly how I responded. I specifically said that the assertion, “Organic = bad for the environement” is silly. Plants have been growing without manmade fertilizer and pesticide since long before humans came on the scene, and the environment somehow survived it. If you translate his statement into “organic farming, when done poorly and to excess by millions of humans, can have detrimental effects on the specific land that’s being overstressed,” I would agree with him completely. But that’s not what he said.
Please quote back to me the place where I proposed the entire world going organic. For that matter, please show me where I disagreed with the first paragraph of Philster’s post #17 (I disagreed with one specific sentence, which I still maintain is a silly overgeneralization). If you’re going to argue with me, at least have the courtesy to only argue things that I actually said.
Don’t accuse me of being disingenuous, O great twister of words. First of all, I never said squat about organic chemistry. Not my field. Secondly, I never pretended we were talking about anything except what was actually stated in specific posts, which I’ve quoted to you (if you’d bother to read them). Third, this thread title says organic food, not organic farming. The cattle from my ranch carry an organic label just like the corn from someone else’s farm.
I certainly don’t claim to be an expert in genetic engineering, but I thought you could make plants resistant to pests by means other than turning them into little pesticide factories. Can’t they be made less attractive to various pests, or better able to withstand the ravages of various natural plant diseases, molds, and so forth?
I sit on squarely on the fence as to whether organic farming is a good or bad thing. I personally believe that organic beef tastes better, and I can attest that it’s been very easy for me to produce. I have few enough cows that I can grow everything I need to feed them on my own property. It’s also been profitable, because I don’t spend any more money doing it. My operation, however, is a very small one, and I don’t depend on it for a living. I know organic doesn’t scale well.
I just can’t buy into the rabid “non-organic is poison” argument, nor into the equally rabid “organic is stupid/harmful/whatever” argument. Clearly, organic farming and ranching has both advantages and disadvantages, and I generally ignore both sets of extremists.
I’m not sure. I do know that that is one strategy used in genetic engineering today. As I already mentioned, plants produce large amounts of toxic compounds all by themselves; even purely selective breeding to yield more pest resistant crops is liable to increase the amounts of those chemicals, and in most cases, we simply don’t know what their long-term effects are, or whether there is a certain amount that is entirely safe to consume - and what that amount is.
I’m with you; I’m sitting on the fence on the issue because it’s not something I know enough about to really opine either way - and what I do know is often contradictory.