The experiment.

[Dixana]

I dug out a few 3 gallon containers and am going to grow some of my peppers in them since I don't have as much room as I thoyght in the garden.
Every other commercial this time of year is miracle grow. Look how much nicer this plant is grown in miracle grow blah blah.
I had a bag of MG in the garage and am going going to grow 2 pepper plants in containers side by side. Both plants are the same size same age and were started from seed by me.
One plant will go in the MG the other in a mix of organic potting soil and mushroom compost. The MG will get water, the other will get compost tea, etc.
I'm putting my $ on the organic plant for size, production, AND taste, what about you guys?

Edit: I took out the first paragraph as it had really nothing to do with this other than how I can to decide to keep some plants in containers....

[Toil]

please don't crowd your plants with another plant of the same root habit! it never, ever works.


ever.


never ever ever ever never.

err on the side of too much room. you get way better total yield.


There is a reason the word "thin" or some variation is on every seed packet you ever bought. You can't get blood from a stone!

If you want plants close, think in 3 dimensions above and below the surface is what I say, and do not spare the sickle or the shear. Cocannouer can tell you better than me http://www.journeytoforever.org/farm_library/weeds/WeedsToC.html . Hey if you have little space who needs to keep the same type together, right?

[Kisal]

I agree with Toil. Also, without proper air circulation around the plants, they will be subject to many diseases. JMO.

[soil]

please don't crowd your plants with another plant of the same root habit! it never, ever works.

you cant say ever. i love polycropping! plants are social too

[Dixana]

I posted a new thread in the veggie forum about my plant crowding issue if anyone wants to see my layout and/or comment
Regardless I think there will be problems or something will have to go in containers.....

[Toil]

please don't crowd your plants with another plant of the same root habit! it never, ever works.

you cant say ever. i love polycropping! plants are social too

well yeah, but aside from that...

how can I put it then? you know what I am trying to say about a cabbage mashed up on another cabbage. But a cabbage and clover and some radish with an annual grass is a nice square foot or so. you could have something else too.

Radishes serve me well as there is no intention of eating them.

[GardenJester]

I'm going to have to say MG will do better than organic. There's a reason why majority of the commercial farmers use artificial fertilizers similar to MG. The yields are simply more/better than the organic methods. But, all our home gardener aren't doing it for the yield, so why use chemicals?

[Toil]

are we talking yield over just one season, or real life?

[rainbowgardener]

I'm going to have to say MG will do better than organic. There's a reason why majority of the commercial farmers use artificial fertilizers similar to MG. The yields are simply more/better than the organic methods.

I don't believe this-- I will get back to the yield question in a minute. But I think most commercial / industrial agriculture uses petroleum based fertilizers and lots of chemicals because they are a business and they are doing cost-benefit analysis and working for the most profit possible. Organic methods are more labor intensive and labor is always the biggest expense in any business. Chemical methods are easier for one person riding around in a gigantic air-conditioned machine (compacting their soil) to do.

Prices of food are so low that increasing the yield by using more labor is not cost effective, the increased yield doesn't earn enough to pay for the increased labor. But the reason that chemical methods are more cost effective is that lots of the actual costs of the process are out-sourced and not counted in -- petroleum production is heavily govt subsidized, so the agro business is not paying the true cost of the petro-fertilizer, not to mention the environmental costs such as the billions it will cost to try to remediate the Gulf after this massive spill. Water remains nearly free so the cost of extra irrigation needed because organic soils retain water so much better isn't counted in, etc etc.

So about yield... here's a great article I found on the whole question of can we feed the world organically. I recommend reading the whole article it is very enlightening http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/~christos/a ... rming.html , but here's a few highlights from it of studies of organic vs industrial methods for yield:

Soybean production systems were also highly productive, achieving 40 bushels/acre. In 1999 however, during one of the worst droughts on record, yields of organic soybeans were 30 bushels /acre, compared to only 16 bushels/acre from conventionally- grown soybeans (Rodale Institute, 1999). "Our trials show that improving the quality of the soil through organic practices can mean the difference between a harvest or hardship in times of drought"

A comprehensive review of a large number of comparison studies of grain and soybean production conduct by six Midwestern universities since 1978 found that in all of these studies organic production was equivalent to, and in many cases better than, conventional

Corn yields were comparable in all three cropping systems (less than 1% difference) (Drinkwater, 1998). However, a comparison of soil characteristics during a 15-year period found that soil fertility was enhanced in the organic systems, while it decreased considerably in the conventional system. Nitrogen content and organic matter levels in the soil increased markedly in the manure—fertilized organic system and declined in the conventional system. Moreover, the conventional system had the highest environmental impact, where 60% more nitrate was leached into the groundwater over a 5 year period than in the organic systems (Drinkwater, 1998). [RBG - again the farmers aren't paying for that kind of damage they create, so it isn't counted in the cost]

ETC!!

The article says that at least sometimes the organic methods don't just give higher yield they are actually more profitable. So I have to think that sometimes commercial farmers use chemical methods because that is what they were taught and they don't know any better.

[garden5]

Wow, now that's an experiment that I will be following. I personally think that when you see those miracle grow commercials touting how a miracle grow plant is twice as large as a conventionally grown one, there is a caveat.

You have to remember, not everything on commercials is what it seems. For instance, sometimes when you sees thick, smooth milk being poured into/onto something, it's actually Elmer's wood glue .

Now I can't prove this, but I'll bet that in the MG commercials, the non-MG plant is grown in totally sterile potting medium and fed nothing but water, which is why the MG plant looks so much healthier.

This is just a thought, anyway.

[Dixana]

Well the plants are in their containers. Living in podunkville as I do I could not find organic potting soil not made by MG so I used the same formula I used when I up potted my wild boars with a few exceptions. A scoop of garden soil, mushroom compost, seed starter(for drainage cuz that stuff just won't hold water), and what was left of my worm castings (I was gonna make tea with that but sacrificed it in the same of science). It ended up being a nice mix.

I'll take some pictures on the phone later today and post them. right now I only have pictures on the camera. My expectation is the MG plant will take off faster but the organic will outperform in the long run. I would also like to add I'm not adding "fertilzer" per se to either plant. The MG potting mix is supposed to feed for 3 months which should roughly be the life of the plant and I feel that compost, castings, and regular doses of tea are fertilizer enough for organic plantings.

I was debating on using some form of bug killer on the MG plant as worm tea helps keep the bad buggies away, but I have no use for the stuff and don't know what I'd do with it when the experiment is over. Any thoughts on how to keep the nasties off the MG plant? Maybe I won't have any problems since they"re in containers......

[The Helpful Gardener]

If we are keeping the experiment pure, then the same controls should be used on both plants to eliminate variables. So nothing on either, would be my vote. See which one survives that. I have no doubts...

The MG plant will get bigger, with more leaves, but it will not outproduce the other plant. The old saw about needing chemicals to feed the world is quickly falling apart as we learn more about natural systems and polycropping; more labor intensive, but WAY more food (you can outproduce conventional row agriculture by 60% with organic polycropping, but not from a tractor...)

I amn interested to see the final results, but production is not my main concern with organics versus chems. Organics isn't causing dead zones in out coastal areas, or turning ponds into swamps, or poisoning water for children and pregnant women (A 1990 EPA study estimated excessive notrogen in half the wells in the US).


Guess what is...

HG

[Dixana]

So no compost/worm tea on my organic plant?
Doesn't that give the MG plant kind of a "leg up" since it contains fertilizer? Then again I guess castings and compost kind of is fertilizer....

[Gary350]

It depends on your definitions of better.

I have 2 cosins that both share crop about 2000 acres of land every summer. They have both been farming for 30+ years.

My cousin in Southern Illinois stopped using fertilizer years ago. He said it is a break even thing either way you go. If you compair total crop for the year with no fertilizer sells for $100,000. and total crop of the year sells for $120,000. if he buys $20,000. of fertilizer either way the profit = $100,000. He said, fertilizer is a lot of extra work just to make the same profit.

These numbers are for example only this is the way he explained it to me.

My cousin in central Illinois still uses fertilize he claims the extra profit is not much maybe $1000 per year is worth the extra work in using fertilizer.

I notice a difference in my garden the yield goes up and vegatables taste just as good with fertilizer, no change in flavor. I have a very small garden I don't care if it does cost extra for fertilizer food is better that grocery store food and I get more food per square foot. Without fertilizer I would have to plant a larger garden and do more labor to do what the smaller garden does with fertilizer.

You can argue fertilizer is a chemical I don't want chemicals on my garden. Ammonia is chemical made it is used for nitrogen. Urine soaked manure produces Ammonia that is nitrogen too. Ammonia is ammonia no matter how it is produced and nitrogen is nitrogen no matter how it is produced that = bigger crop yield no matter which way you look at it. All I am concerned with is NOT putting toxic poison on my garden and not eating toxic poisons.

[Toil]

if you get good at organic polyculture your yields will likely go up from where they are now, and your work will be reduced. think in 3-d and the possibilities multiply. Thats going to work best if you maintain the relationship between plants and microbes. Give them fertilizer for free and they won't bother with the microbes so much.

It's not an issue of chemicals. Urea is urea.