Synthetic Vs. Organic: Not So Black And White

[ill eagle]

Aren't plants organic whichever way they are grown?

 

[Bulldog11]

@DrFever. Your wrong. Look up American Ecco Agriculture. They are turning thousands of acres of farmland into organic, pesticide free product. In doing this, they are taking the chem farms that are getting hit hard with disease and bug problems, and turning them into super productive organic farms. John Kempt talks about walking down the property line of the farm and looking at his neighbors crops that bump right up to his crops. The neighbor had been hit hard with bugs and mildew, yet his organic crop only feet away was bug free......How does that happen? Read the book Tuning into Nature and find the answer.

Your non-sense about "today’s agriculture output with 1960s era technology, we would need on the order of 1 million square miles of additional farmland" is incredibly untrue. Where do you hear this crap? Monsanto teach you this?

Also look into William Albrect.

 

[hiiipower]

The OP's(me) question was "Do plants care how their nutrients are made available to them, whether from bacteria/fungi or from modern technology(synthetics)?"

fwiw
http://www.chemicalforums.com/index.php?topic=81347.0
I posted this question a couple days ago to this forum. Not too in depth of a thread but they do seem to infer that the answer to my question is no. So does all of the other info we've posted so far imo. I can only conclude that in every situation, neither is the best. Every growing situation has a multitude of pros/cons, and either style can be used advantageously over the other in one way, shape, or form.

Please stop posting environmental stuff in this thread. Start a different one if you want to discuss that, it's not relevant to my question. I specifically said I didn't wish to debate the pros/cons and how the styles can be used advantageously over one another. I just wish to discuss the chemical structures of various nutrients(organic/synthetic) and want to know if plants care about those differences when it comes to growth/production.

Peace

 

[sixstring]

i still feel like these nute companies are trying to make stuff better(some of them) by using food grade elements .so i think in the coming years we will have synthetic nutes that are more healthy for us to use on our plants and will be more availible to the plants,faster,which will make them hard to beat.

 

[gardnguyahoy]

The OP's(me) question was "Do plants care how their nutrients are made available to them, whether from bacteria/fungi or from modern technology(synthetics)?"

fwiw
http://www.chemicalforums.com/index.php?topic=81347.0
I posted this question a couple days ago to this forum. Not too in depth of a thread but they do seem to infer that the answer to my question is no. So does all of the other info we've posted so far imo. I can only conclude that in every situation, neither is the best. Every growing situation has a multitude of pros/cons, and either style can be used advantageously over the other in one way, shape, or form.

Please stop posting environmental stuff in this thread. Start a different one if you want to discuss that, it's not relevant to my question. I specifically said I didn't wish to debate the pros/cons and how the styles can be used advantageously over one another. I just wish to discuss the chemical structures of various nutrients(organic/synthetic) and want to know if plants care about those differences when it comes to growth/production.

Peace

word. my bad

 

[shemshemet]

The OP's(me) question was "Do plants care how their nutrients are made available to them, whether from bacteria/fungi or from modern technology(synthetics)?"

fwiw
http://www.chemicalforums.com/index.php?topic=81347.0
I posted this question a couple days ago to this forum. Not too in depth of a thread but they do seem to infer that the answer to my question is no. So does all of the other info we've posted so far imo. I can only conclude that in every situation, neither is the best. Every growing situation has a multitude of pros/cons, and either style can be used advantageously over the other in one way, shape, or form.

Please stop posting environmental stuff in this thread. Start a different one if you want to discuss that, it's not relevant to my question. I specifically said I didn't wish to debate the pros/cons and how the styles can be used advantageously over one another. I just wish to discuss the chemical structures of various nutrients(organic/synthetic) and want to know if plants care about those differences when it comes to growth/production.

Peace

There is no difference between a synthetic ion and an ion which exists "naturally".

By you stating you are only asking that one question, and then leading into the sentence "I can only conclude that in every situation, neither is the best", you are contradicting yourself.

You are asking two different questions:
1) Is there a difference in form between the chemicals a plant intakes (synthetically created vs naturally existing)? The answer is decidedly no.

2) Do plants care about how nutrients are made available?

Question 2 is the kicker, where this whole discussion on methods DOES have a place, in fact it is necessary to talk about nutrient availability and diversity in the rhizosphere. Because growth/production is so much more than NPK.

I personally keep bringing the discussion back to the small nuances in the differences of farming styles, because I believe that the most important aspect of growth/production is the entire system.

By bringing the discussion into availability you are automatically entering the debate of the entire system, or else the question is loaded.

A plants growth/production is not only determined by the chemical structure of NPK. Nor the other elements. When you start studying the rhizosphere, you can determine that humus content is critical. But humus content is not part of the "chemical structure of various nutrients". Plant do not uptake humic acid, but it is a cornerstone of organic or sustainable farming. And neither is the chitosan, and other examples of organic matter. The small nuances on how some organic matter is broken down, and is helpful to the plant in other ways, this is critical to your discussion whether you believe it or not.

@gardnguyahoy

Check into sustainable agriculture, and permaculture. I think these methods are more well rounded than certified organic, and are more in line with "healthy". Because they tie so closely into ecosystems, and use natural processes, and waste to their advantage.

 

[gardnguyahoy]

There is no difference between a synthetic ion and an ion which exists "naturally".

By you stating you are only asking that one question, and then leading into the sentence "I can only conclude that in every situation, neither is the best", you are contradicting yourself.

You are asking two different questions:
1) Is there a difference in form between the chemicals a plant intakes (synthetically created vs naturally existing)? The answer is decidedly no.

2) Do plants care about how nutrients are made available?

Question 2 is the kicker, where this whole discussion on methods DOES have a place, in fact it is necessary to talk about nutrient availability and diversity in the rhizosphere. Because growth/production is so much more than NPK.

I personally keep bringing the discussion back to the small nuances in the differences of farming styles, because I believe that the most important aspect of growth/production is the entire system.

By bringing the discussion into availability you are automatically entering the debate of the entire system, or else the question is loaded.

A plants growth/production is not only determined by the chemical structure of NPK. Nor the other elements. When you start studying the rhizosphere, you can determine that humus content is critical. But humus content is not part of the "chemical structure of various nutrients". Plant do not uptake humic acid, but it is a cornerstone of organic or sustainable farming. And neither is the chitosan, and other examples of organic matter. The small nuances on how some organic matter is broken down, and is helpful to the plant in other ways, this is critical to your discussion whether you believe it or not.

@gardnguyahoy

Check into sustainable agriculture, and permaculture. I think these methods are more well rounded than certified organic, and are more in line with "healthy". Because they tie so closely into ecosystems, and use natural processes, and waste to their advantage.

Daymn. thanks shem, that was a boss ass post, and a good read.
thanks for the ref ill read up for sure
positive vibes

 

[kuz]

I am all about trying to find a combination of synthetic and organic right now. I was going to do a run using straight Aptus. Problem was the start boost and base pellets starved my plants at the beginning. I should have given them a blast of synthetics at the start.

There are a thousand topics we could discuss here. A company called nutri-tech also has lots of info, too bad they dont have a US distributor. The goal is healthier more nutritious disease free plants, and tastier bud. and for me the goal is to reuse my soil at least for a couple of years.

 

[DrFever]

@DrFever. Your wrong. Look up American Ecco Agriculture. They are turning thousands of acres of farmland into organic, pesticide free product. In doing this, they are taking the chem farms that are getting hit hard with disease and bug problems, and turning them into super productive organic farms. John Kempt talks about walking down the property line of the farm and looking at his neighbors crops that bump right up to his crops. The neighbor had been hit hard with bugs and mildew, yet his organic crop only feet away was bug free......How does that happen? Read the book Tuning into Nature and find the answer.

Your non-sense about "today’s agriculture output with 1960s era technology, we would need on the order of 1 million square miles of additional farmland" is incredibly untrue. Where do you hear this crap? Monsanto teach you this?

Also look into William Albrect.

first of all let put this into perspective on average organic yields what 25 - 35 percent less ???
in 2012 USA only had 914 million acres of farm land compared to 1990 when there was 987 million acres .... I wonder why is that
You wanna know ok on average 3000 acres Daily i mean every day is being developed new homes commercial Business , population continues to grow and with that farm land is declining
thems are FACTS how many people here live in a city surrounded by farms ??? or once was farms ?? and being honest how many have seen a farm once on outter part no longer there cause of expansion ..
only one way for city to grow and that is outwards ..
so if we took the 914 million acres used in 2012 it must be much smaller number now but even went 914 x .28 percent for organics to compete with conventional that would mean almost 256 million acres more would be needed wonder where there going to get that land from .. cut some more forest or wet lands down force species to extinction wild game birds , insects etc
Let alone first few years yields will be lower then the 25 - 35 percent after conversion could you imagine loaf of bread 20 bucks milk 30 bucks
and dont kid your self with more de forestation comes more mud slides and floods etc

Then we get into pesticides used in organic farming and last resort chemicals i am curious do you think that applying organic insecticide 7 times to a plant will not impact the enviroment compared to one application of chem in conventional ..
just because something derived from a lush growing plant does not mean its SAFE
Rotenone and pyrethrin are two common organic pesticides; imidan is considered a "soft" synthetic pesticide (i.e., designed to have a brief lifetime after application, and other traits that minimize unwanted effects). It was found that up to 7 applications of the rotenone- pyrethrin mixture were required to obtain the level of protection provided by 2 applications of imidan.

It seems unlikely that 7 applications of rotenone and pyrethrin are really better for the environment than 2 applications of imidan, especially when rotenone is extremely toxic to fish and other aquatic life.

 

[Wisher619]

@DrFever
I don't want to argue but just to let you know....I live in a town tht is surrounded on all 4 sides by Farm and I have actually seen the farms expand exponentially as housing has declined...as well almost all have transitioned from standard to organic....Statistics are just that...statistics...the problem is tht every instance is different....one organic farm might have to use pesticides while another might not...Just like if I was growing in a sterile lab in hydro there is no way I would be using organics and vice versa

 

[DrFever]

@DrFever
I don't want to argue but just to let you know....I live in a town tht is surrounded on all 4 sides by Farm and I have actually seen the farms expand exponentially as housing has declined...as well almost all have transitioned from standard to organic....Statistics are just that...statistics...the problem is tht every instance is different....one organic farm might have to use pesticides while another might not...Just like if I was growing in a sterile lab in hydro there is no way I would be using organics and vice versa

did you know that 50 acres of farm land and ranch land are lost every hr to sprawl and development , in the US
1.7 billion tons of top soil vanish to erosion each year , 2/3 of the waterways are degraded and most importantly 57 percent of the american farmers are 55 and older and likely to retire in the next few years

If we continue to lose our farms and farmlands our ability to supply any significant proportion of our food needs locally will be greatly diminished. Food shipped from long distances – California, Florida, South and Central America – involves greater consumption of fossil fuels and production of greenhouse gases. And food produced far away is inherently less reliable than food grown closer to home. This is especially so given that we don’t know what impact climate change will have on the growing regions from which we get much of our food now.

As farmland goes fallow or is consumed by sprawling residential development, our agricultural economy shrinks further. The number of jobs, not just on farms, but in transporting, processing, and marketing food, continues to decline. When we “grow” homes where fruits and vegetables used to grow, we also trade land that produces value with land that consumes costly public services.

 

[DrFever]

Now like i said organic is great for small scale operations but considering agricultural advancements , is it really sustainable, what does sustainable mean ???
the meaning varies widely ..
A sustainable agriculture must be economically viable, socially responsible and Ecologically sound is organics all this ??? i think not actually Far from it in reality

The organic movement touts the sustainability of their methods, but its claims do not withstand scrutiny. For example, a study published earlier this year in the journal Hydrology and Earth System Sciences found that the potential for groundwater contamination can be dramatically reduced if fertilizers are distributed through the irrigation system according to plant demand during the growing season. But organic farming depends on compost, the release of which is not matched with plant demand.

The study found that “intensive organic agriculture relying on solid organic matter, such as composted manure that is implemented in the soil prior to planting as the sole fertilizer, resulted in significant down-leaching of nitrate” into groundwater. Especially with many of the world’s most fertile farming regions in the throes of drought and aquifer depletion–which was the subject of a 60 Minutes segment on November 16–increased nitrate in groundwater is hardly a mark of sustainability.

Moreover, although composting gets good PR as a “green” activity, at large scale it generates a significant amount of greenhouse gases (and is also often a source of pathogenic bacteria applied to crops).

Organic farming might work well for certain local environments on a small scale, but its farms produce far less food per unit of land and water than conventional ones. The low yields of organic agriculture–typically 20%-50% percent lower than conventional agriculture–impose various stresses on farmland and especially on water consumption. A British meta-analysis published in the Journal of Environmental Management (2012) addressed the question whether organic farming reduces environmental impacts. It identified some of the stresses that were higher in organic, as opposed to conventional, agriculture: “ammonia emissions, nitrogen leaching and nitrous oxide emissions per product unit were higher from organic systems,” as were “land use, eutrophication potential and acidification potential per product unit.”

Lower organic crop yields are largely inevitable, given the systematic, arbitrary rejection of various advanced methods and technologies in organic farming. Organic affords limited pesticide options, difficulties in meeting peak fertilizer demand, and the lack of access to genetically engineered varieties. If the scale of organic production were significantly increased, the lower yields would increase the pressure for the conversion of more land to farming and on water supplies, both of which are serious environmental issues. at present as western USA down to texas will dry up like a prune in next 20 years expected to be desert land where noting will grow
One has to think if you feed a cow low brix on one end how do you expect high brix to come out the other end

Sorry to say, but as of now, there is no clear-cut answer as to whether organic foods are nutritionally advanced as compared to conventionally grown foods. Several studies have reported an increase in vitamin, mineral, and phytochemical content of organic produce, and while I would LOVE to believe them, these findings must be taken with a grain of salt due to the major problems with study design variability and just poor science in some cases. Not only do we need more quality studies looking into this question, we need more studies examining the bioavailability of organic vs. conventional foods (which I’m sure would just open up a whole new can of variable-poor-study-design worms, but need to be done nevertheless).

So as a final point, no studies have really shown that organic foods are nutritionally worse than conventional, in fact the trend is for them to be no different or slightly better. If organic foods are actually nutritionally superior, I have a feeling it won’t be by much, meaning it may make no substantial difference in terms of your health.

 

[Wisher619]

what does any of this have to do with whether plants care where they get the ionic exchange from????

There are many ways to grow but the deal is most are perfect as long as we are talking nutrients and not pesticides....
and nutrients as in non hormone..
but if you grow in hydro and you give your plants the correct wavelength of light and the correct ionic exchange of +/- then it will be just as good if not in some cases better then sticking them in dirt and hoping that the microbe life is gonna do its job...at the same time I grow multiple ways and I find that they all produce as good as each other

oh and by the way I live in California so I don't really need anything shipped across the world for my family and I to sustain sustenance

 

[SpitXFire]

@gardnguyahoy sorry i meant to finish answering your questions after that spiel but trailed off by eating edibles and smoking a blunt lol. I tend to post while high and totally slack since im so busy, bear with me here lol.

But like I stated before, the choice is ultimately up to you on what you deem is a safe enough level for you and yours. Is the goal sustainability and restoring the soil, or trying not to disturb the native soil? I would go organics all the way, the new soil science ive been reading is showing that synthetics cannot support the same amount of microbial and food web numbers as well(I'll dig up some links and see if they're pay walled). I would especially recommend organics to those who would 'set it and forget' so to speak. Build up a strong foundation and let it do its thang, where as I feel to shine with synthetics, you must be on your game. Ferting is not too hard be you must constantly monitor and sterilize. I'm religious about bleach lol. If health is the utmost concern, I would worry about pesticide, fungicide, and herbicides first and foremost. Cut that out, and you'll be fine. No doubt, there are times when bugs invaded and I wanted to wage war, but knowing in the canna industry they are unscrupulous (no approved pesticides type shit, pgr's etc) so i rather, hung my hat, tore it down and started again. I can always get more genetics, ive lost plenty rare, ill lose plenty more, but i couldnt put a price on someones health. Look I'm rambling again lol.

But finally is this, educate yourself on some basic chemistry and biology, and scrutinize and anything you're not 100% are, which you already are doing I'd say. I have no problem using synthetics indoors because I know how most of them are sourced and no problem looking them up or asking the chemist here. You can wiki most compounds or google and see how they are derived how they are applied, and interactions. Despite wiki not being a 'real' source, on science and history pages it tends to be pretty resourceful for a basic rundown, and have links cited for you to follow up on. Reading companion style books sure(teaming with microbes is great) but try to crack a textbook sometimes, the raw knowledge to be gleaned can be more straightforward and useful. But nothing wrong with organics for non large scale farming imo, I can't tell the difference from either when done well and intelligently. And us stoners can be extremely intelligent when we put our minds to it :cool:

TL;DR - Its up to you, both are fine, its not a race between the two, learn the sourcing of what youre getting into, be a discerning consumer and you'll be fine, oh and no fungi/herb/pesticides

 

[Bulldog11]

first of all let put this into perspective on average organic yields what 25 - 35 percent less ???
in 2012 USA only had 914 million acres of farm land compared to 1990 when there was 987 million acres .... I wonder why is that
You wanna know ok on average 3000 acres Daily i mean every day is being developed new homes commercial Business , population continues to grow and with that farm land is declining
thems are FACTS how many people here live in a city surrounded by farms ??? or once was farms ?? and being honest how many have seen a farm once on outter part no longer there cause of expansion ..
only one way for city to grow and that is outwards ..
so if we took the 914 million acres used in 2012 it must be much smaller number now but even went 914 x .28 percent for organics to compete with conventional that would mean almost 256 million acres more would be needed wonder where there going to get that land from .. cut some more forest or wet lands down force species to extinction wild game birds , insects etc
Let alone first few years yields will be lower then the 25 - 35 percent after conversion could you imagine loaf of bread 20 bucks milk 30 bucks
and dont kid your self with more de forestation comes more mud slides and floods etc

Then we get into pesticides used in organic farming and last resort chemicals i am curious do you think that applying organic insecticide 7 times to a plant will not impact the enviroment compared to one application of chem in conventional ..
just because something derived from a lush growing plant does not mean its SAFE
Rotenone and pyrethrin are two common organic pesticides; imidan is considered a "soft" synthetic pesticide (i.e., designed to have a brief lifetime after application, and other traits that minimize unwanted effects). It was found that up to 7 applications of the rotenone- pyrethrin mixture were required to obtain the level of protection provided by 2 applications of imidan.

It seems unlikely that 7 applications of rotenone and pyrethrin are really better for the environment than 2 applications of imidan, especially when rotenone is extremely toxic to fish and other aquatic life.

Everything you wrote is nonsense. I was responding to the fact that you said farming couldn't be done with 1960 technology. I didn't ask for the average yield of organics or the average farm land in America. All that has nothing to do with what you originally claimed. Once again, your wrong. American Ecco Agriculture has been turning thousands of acres of chem farm lands into organic farms. The yields coming from AEA are as high as chem farm, with a higher nutrient density. Period. The rest is just bullshit you wrote.

 

[Seamaiden]

@DrFever
I don't want to argue but just to let you know....I live in a town tht is surrounded on all 4 sides by Farm and I have actually seen the farms expand exponentially as housing has declined...as well almost all have transitioned from standard to organic....Statistics are just that...statistics...the problem is tht every instance is different....one organic farm might have to use pesticides while another might not...Just like if I was growing in a sterile lab in hydro there is no way I would be using organics and vice versa

Did you know that organic is a huge growth industry right now? Doing at least 10% per annum.

did you know that 50 acres of farm land and ranch land are lost every hr to sprawl and development , in the US
1.7 billion tons of top soil vanish to erosion each year , 2/3 of the waterways are degraded and most importantly 57 percent of the american farmers are 55 and older and likely to retire in the next few years

You've just made the argument in favor of organic agriculture. Contact your local ag extension agent, tell them you're interested in developing an organic cultivators plan. Get your state's paperwork, read it, then come back and tell us what the majority of that paperwork is focused on. Mine is focused on soil building, erosion prevention, maintaining health of watersheds, and building or maintaining wildlife areas, aka buffer strips.

Unfortunately, we seem to rapidly be losing the lessons learned during the Dust Bowl.

The organic movement touts the sustainability of their methods, but its claims do not withstand scrutiny. For example, a study published earlier this year in the journal Hydrology and Earth System Sciences found that the potential for groundwater contamination can be dramatically reduced if fertilizers are distributed through the irrigation system according to plant demand during the growing season. But organic farming depends on compost, the release of which is not matched with plant demand.

The study found that “intensive organic agriculture relying on solid organic matter, such as composted manure that is implemented in the soil prior to planting as the sole fertilizer, resulted in significant down-leaching of nitrate” into groundwater. Especially with many of the world’s most fertile farming regions in the throes of drought and aquifer depletion–which was the subject of a 60 Minutes segment on November 16–increased nitrate in groundwater is hardly a mark of sustainability.

Not necessarily, and the use of compost and especially composted manures is reportable and regulated and watched very closely. Organic can be done right and organic can be done wrong, just like synthetic/conventional agriculture. There is organic being done wrong down in central Cali. Huge amounts of groundwater being pumped, causing salting of the soil in that area, to grow huge amounts of carrots. There's a disconnect happening, and it is due, in large part, to the fact that it's a growth industry and there will *always* be people who do things for that reason and not the reasons that many of us here are debating.

I'll have to go and see if I can find the hardcopy of some studies that contradict what you've found. The widespread harm done over decades to soils and waterways has not occurred due to organic agriculture, but in fact due to the conventional agriculture you're defending.

 

[shemshemet]

@Seamaiden ^^Wish I could like that more than once.

 

[gardnguyahoy]

@shemshemet @Seamaiden

@Seamaiden ^^Wish I could like that more than once.

Ha. Me too. Thanks again for blessing us with the knowledge of the grow gods.

@gardnguyahoy sorry i meant to finish answering your questions after that spiel but trailed off by eating edibles and smoking a blunt lol. I tend to post while high and totally slack since im so busy, bear with me here lol.

But like I stated before, the choice is ultimately up to you on what you deem is a safe enough level for you and yours. Is the goal sustainability and restoring the soil, or trying not to disturb the native soil? I would go organics all the way, the new soil science ive been reading is showing that synthetics cannot support the same amount of microbial and food web numbers as well(I'll dig up some links and see if they're pay walled). I would especially recommend organics to those who would 'set it and forget' so to speak. Build up a strong foundation and let it do its thang, where as I feel to shine with synthetics, you must be on your game. Ferting is not too hard be you must constantly monitor and sterilize. I'm religious about bleach lol. If health is the utmost concern, I would worry about pesticide, fungicide, and herbicides first and foremost. Cut that out, and you'll be fine. No doubt, there are times when bugs invaded and I wanted to wage war, but knowing in the canna industry they are unscrupulous (no approved pesticides type shit, pgr's etc) so i rather, hung my hat, tore it down and started again. I can always get more genetics, ive lost plenty rare, ill lose plenty more, but i couldnt put a price on someones health. Look I'm rambling again lol.

But finally is this, educate yourself on some basic chemistry and biology, and scrutinize and anything you're not 100% are, which you already are doing I'd say. I have no problem using synthetics indoors because I know how most of them are sourced and no problem looking them up or asking the chemist here. You can wiki most compounds or google and see how they are derived how they are applied, and interactions. Despite wiki not being a 'real' source, on science and history pages it tends to be pretty resourceful for a basic rundown, and have links cited for you to follow up on. Reading companion style books sure(teaming with microbes is great) but try to crack a textbook sometimes, the raw knowledge to be gleaned can be more straightforward and useful. But nothing wrong with organics for non large scale farming imo, I can't tell the difference from either when done well and intelligently. And us stoners can be extremely intelligent when we put our minds to it :cool:

TL;DR - Its up to you, both are fine, its not a race between the two, learn the sourcing of what youre getting into, be a discerning consumer and you'll be fine, oh and no fungi/herb/pesticides

This is exactly the conversation i wouldve hoped to have with someone. Knowledge, common ground, not arguing my point down your throat, and not having that happen in return to me.

So thank you.

I opened a thread to discuss this topic specifically but sea deleted it cause she hates me. Haha na, ill try n find a way to repost it or just try n rewrite it and put it back up soon. Id like to know the steps people are taking out there that are similarly minded as i am, and wish to be health conscious, as well as not leaving too much destruction poison, or support any shitty eco-unfriendly products

 

[Herb Forester]

@Bulldog11 I think you mean Advancing Eco Ag (John Kempf). Neither his methods nor the product line are entirely organic by a long shot. Same for Nutri-tech.

 

[Wisher619]

@Seamaiden Ive seen the permaculture video an I know exactly where that farm is....the problem I have is that guy is a Douchebag and what he is trying to sell to the viewers is loaded with bullshit....If he just said by pumping this water it is destroying the enviroment but he uses props like the Chumash used to fish in that river...1000 years ago...literally

That land has been the way it has been for Atleast a few hundred years...when Hurst came upon the land in the mid 1800's it was nothing but wasteland with a lot of oil...
It still is a wasteland with a lot of oil...and that has nothing to do with organic carrots....

seeing things like that leave a bad taste in my mouth
I hate propaganda and what better way then to vilify an infant organic farm for destroying the enviroment from what was once a glorious land 1000-1500 years ago...but they never tell you that part...
Maybe they are salting the land with the tiny amout of water they are pumping out to water the tiny ass carrot farm....

Sorry about that rant
@Seamaiden
no hard feelings...I love organic and even more permaculture an try to practice both along with other methods but it just boils my blood those propaganda films...Kinda like Michael Moore garbage

@gardnguyahoy
Just research the company's that you might choose to go with and study the practices they choose to work with....how clean is the product they put out and as a company how much are they environmentally conscious..
Also LOCAL LOCAL LOCAL.....