Organic gardening & OP/Heirlooms

It always surprises me to discover that an organic gardener raises hybrid vegetables and has nothing good to say about open pollinated or heirloom varieties.

Or vice-versa: to find heirloom growers who reject organic methods for growing their prized crops.

It would seem logical that where you'd find one, you'd tend to find the other. And so I'm curious - can anyone explain why that doesn't seem to be the case in many instances?

This has me curious too vols. It really seems backwards in many cases. Why go to all the trouble to raise pure strains of historic veggies if you are going to apply 'modern' fertilizers and pesticides. Defeats the purpose in my eyes.

You know, I'm going to ask a real stupid question. What is actually classified as an heirloom. Is it determined by the age of the variety, by the trueness of seed, by what?.. and who decides? Are we talking veggies, or does it apply to flowers, shrubs, etc.?

As a seed collector, I'm always interested in plants that come back true from seed, but most veggies, except the oriental veggies, just never go to seed here before the season is over. In my case, what would be the advantage of growing heirloom vegetables, when I can't collect seed?

When Y2K issues were raised, there was quite an interest in heirloom seed, some people being concerned that all structure would fail in the world and we would each need to fend for ourselves. That all seems pretty outlandish after virtually nothing happened, but perpetuating varieties should still be an issue. The genetically designed seed issue has given it all a "Brave New World" feel.

It would certainly seem that a person who wishes to survive after society, as we know it, has perished would also look into organic methods, since you wouldn't be hopping in the old truck to buy fertilizers and pesticides at the local hardware!

About a million years ago, when I first started writing about heirlooms, I made the same assumption. The concepts of concern for bio-diversity, and concern with being a good steward of the land, just seemed to be a natural pairing. But the reality is they are not. Any heirloom grower who is also an organic grower is so more by accident than design.

I've given up trying to figure out why that is.

Weezingreens: First off, a definition. An heirloomm is any open pollinated plant that has been grown for at least 50 years. That's the starting point. Some people draw tighter definitions (i.e., it must have been handed down once generation to the next, and not have been a commercial seed). But every definition except those promoted by Carolyn Male starts with 50 years as a requirement.

Obviously, the ability to save seed year to year is one of the benefits of growing heirlooms. But there are others. Not the least of which is taste. People grow particular varieites, generation after generation, because they offer good taste.

Modern hybrids, on the other hand, are selected primarily for other reasons. For pest resistence; for uniformity of size, shape, color, and maturity; for durability to withstand the rigors of the modern food distribution system, etc. Flavor is not a criterium, and when you find a hybrid that tastes good it usually is more by accident than design.

The open pollinated/hybrid-gmo issues and the organic/chemicals issues are interrelated. Also quite complex. But you've kind of put your finger on the ends of the continuum.


This message was edited Wednesday, Apr 3rd 6:51 AM

Hmmmm. See, I wasn't even considering the lofty goals of biodiversity and stewardship ;0)

More pragmatically, I was considering the goal of raising good tasting vegetable varieties, whose tastes are further enhanced by being grown without chemicals and toxins.

To answer weez's other question...yes heirlooms can be plants other than veggies. Roses are one of the most well known and collected of heirlooms. Your Grandma's morning glories,the apple trees that Johnny Appleseed planted.,herbs...about anything qualifies if it pretty much fits the description that Brook gave.

With modern hybrids,the gene pool is getting smaller and smaller as more uniform breeding lines are established.People come to expect the produce in the supermarket to look a certain way,and if an item is irregular in shape,or does not have exactly the same color as it's neighbors in the bin,then people pass it over and no sale is made. The large commercial farms know this and so your produce is bred with this cookie cutter mentality in mind.

This narrow gene pool also means that the same pests will be more attracted to the entire crop,wherever it is grown ,so the growers use powerful pesticides to combat it.When the bug gets resistant to whatever brew they are using,they just go stir up something stronger. What happens when you can't kill your pests without risking harm to humans??This day is already here if you do a little reading.Now ,they are inserting the pesticides right into the genes of the plants,so they grow with their own pesticides built right in....Brave New World indeed!

Aside from being historical,and tasting better,heirlooms have not been subjected to this 'scientific' way of farming.And my experience is that the pests are no worse in my organic garden than in my neighbor's.In fact,I have beneficial insects that dine on the bad guys,while my neighbors systematically purge their gardens of anything that creeps,crawls or flies. If a disease affecting a whole class of plants,such as the Potato Famine in Ireland should happen,it stands to reason that plants that have some diversity from the great masses of hybrids might stand a better chance of surviving.That means my heirlooms might withstand something like this as opposed to the hybrid crops.

This is a fascinating subject. Yes, of course flavor and nutrition would be the main motivating force behind nurturing heirloom veggies.. we all have concerns for the future of mankind, but nothing motivates like a tasty plate of broccoli!

In the case of roses or flower varieties, I should think it is something to hand down like the family china.. something that we will see less of in our Tupperware world! I have been known to collect seed and plants from old building sites before they are plowed under, so that those old varieties don't get lost in the shuffle. These plants have proven themselves to survive well here and should not be lost.

That brings up the subject of collecting seeds from a particular area to breed plants that do well in that area. Could that be yet another purpose to perpetuity? I often look at the places these seeds are produced, and wonder what the poor seedlings must think.. conceived in India and propagated in Alaska!

I couldn't agree more about the danger of cloning varieties that are exactly the same. One bout of disease could wipe it all out. When buying grass seed, I always purchase mixes for that very reason.

I can see I need to learn more about heirlooms. I'm afraid I have considered it one of those trendy things, and I couldn't be more wrong! I'm afraid I won't live long enough to spend 50 years maintaining an heirloom, but I can try to preserve that which is already here in our little Alaskan town and keep some history on the varieties!

Thanks for all the info...I'll be watching for more.

In 50 years,I'll be 95...God willing,and I plan to keep searching for heirlooms wherever I can find them.There's no need to wait the 50 years for something 'new'...you can keep old strains from becoming extinct.This is far more important than creating your own heirloom.

Collecting from old home sites,asking at any kind of gathering.People know when I show up in a conversation that I'll soon be asking for old seeds or plants.

Check out the Heirloom Forum weez,read all the old posts..Tomato Forum too.This will give you some more information as to what we're all about. Some things won't grow to seed in Alaska,but you have wonderful things that do.The brassicas are terribly neglected in seed saving circles because they are biennial.You could help preserve things from that family instead of trying to hover over okra or cowpeas. We here in the South tend to think the seed world is made of tomatoes,beans and peppers and ignore things that wither in our heat and humidity.(or bolt..as the case may be)

Anyone intrested in preserving history and is a gardener will at some point dabble in heirlooms.Most of us get hopelessly hooked.

Thanks, Melody... I'm afraid I get hopelessly hooked on anything that has to do with gardening! I'll check out the forums you suggested, as well as the brassicas.

>whose tastes are further enhanced by being grown without chemicals and toxins.<

I'm about to open a whole can of worms here. But that's OK, I'll just toss their castings on the garden.

G-V, one thing we must always be careful of is to not confuse issues. There are all sorts of very good reasons why growing organically makes sense for the home gardener. However, taste isn't one of them.

If I grow a modern hybrid organically, it will still have no taste. And if I grow an heirloom with chemicals, it will.

The fact is, if a plant needs, say, nitrogen, it will look for it in a useable form. The plant doesn't care whether it came from last years legumes or this year's Miracle Grow.

Chemicals and other toxins do all sorts of harm. But you cannot tell, on taste alone, how a particular plant was grown.

Why do I make this point? Quite simply because there is a credebility loss when you contend something that is easily disproven. If I were against organics, I could set up a taste test: two patches, the same veggies, one patch grown with chemicals the other organically. Then, when it turns out there is no significant difference shown in the taste test, I can extrapolate out and say, "See! All that organic noise is BS."

All else aside, there is only _one_ reason for growing organically. If you want strong, healthy plants, you don't grow plants. You grow soil. Good soil produces good plants that are resistent to diseases and which grow to their potential. Chemicals destroy soil. Organics build it. It's really that simple.

Absolutely Brook,

Better tasting veg of any variety is one of the misconceptions of organic plant produce and it's sometimes used as an advertisement tool here.

If I may, I'd like to jump in here, too, and add another misconception about organic growing ~ that organically grown vegetables and fruits are more nutritious. This is simply not so. I do believe that they are better for you, but only because they don't have chemicals sprayed on them.

The following is an example of why we need to be careful to not perpetuate misinformation: The "organic is more nutritious" misconception led John Stossel from the tv show "20/20" to do a story "exposing the fraud of organic gardening" that did uncalled for damage to organic farmers. His story took a turn from the nutrition angle and went off on a tangent about his allegation that organically grown was actually worse for you than non-organic. He ended up having to retract some of his statements. Here is the text of John Stossel's on-air apology (which should have been more forthcoming, IMHO ~ it wasn't just "two sentences that were wrong in a ten-minute report", it was atleast two facts that he got wrong and hammered away at for MOST of the report): http://abcnews.go.com/onair/2020/2020_000811_stossel_apology_feature.html and here are the results I came up with when I went Googling for "John Stossel organic" (you might find a transcript of the show somewhere in there): http://www.google.com/search?site=swr&hl=en&q=John+Stossel&as_q=organic&btnG=Search%A0within%A0results

Of course, organically grown vegetables aren't more nutritious than non-organically grown. There is no difference. But they also certainly aren't worse for you when grown and handled safely (i.e. no uncomposted manures used close to the part you eat if at all, produce washed correctly after picking, handled with clean hands, etc.). IMHO, one of two things happened here. Either some unscrupulous or ignorant organic farmers came up with and/or perpetuated this myth or the public simply took the idea that it was better for you (because of no chemical pesticides used) and made the jump to more nutritious by assumption. Enter John Stossel, doing what the media frequently does ~ blowing it out of proportion, using misleading tests and outright false statements, to make a "sensational" story no matter the victim. I'm glad he was called out on it and had to double back.


Regardless, I'll bet that growing your own vegetables, whether it's heirloom, hybrid, organic or not, will help us all eat more nutritious things. FRESH is what tastes better and, like Weez said, "nothing motivates like a tasty plate of broccoli" or brussels sprouts!

As for the original question ~ heirloom gardening and organic gardening are two different animals. Growing heirlooms is about preserving history and genetic diversity while organic growing is about preserving health, both ours and Mom Nature's. Of course they can be and sometimes are interrelated, as in my garden. But thinking they always should be is akin to thinking that historians and genetic researchers should drive electric cars and not smoke.

Why do I garden organically (or close to it) and grow heirlooms? I do both for very different reasons. I started out with organic gardening first ~ didn't want to poison me or "Mama" by tainting either the spring fed creek 200 feet from my garden or my 18' deep hand-dug well that's closer than that. I ended up finding out it was actually the lazy way to go! Grow those worms, microbes and other "good bugs" and let them do the work for you! It's SO MUCH easier to spread out composted cow poop once every few months than do the Miracle-Grow thing every other week. It's also easier to use too much MG, but you can almost never get too much composted cow poop!

I grow heirlooms because history turns me on! I like thinking that I'm preserving genetic diversity, but the idea that I'm growing something that someone else did years ago really excites me! And knowing that I'm helping to preserve them so that someone else can have that same thrill...well...that's simply an awesome thought to fill one's mind with while weeding and watering and feeding.

This message was edited Wednesday, Apr 3rd 3:54 PM

Here, too, Baa. Which is what scares me, because it and similar messages make it far to easy to discredit organic approaches.

I am not, frankly, a card-carrying member of the organics clan. But I try to do things as naturally as possible. I'm just not interested in certifications, and what is or is not legally "organic."

Sometimes you just have to break down, though. If those lopers get into my brassicas again this year, for instance, I'm gonna load up some #12 shot, and use the cabbage butterflies for some wingshooting practice! Far as I know, lead shot isn't on _anybody's_ approved organic list.

This message was edited Wednesday, Apr 3rd 3:59 PM

>If a disease affecting a whole class of plants,such as the Potato Famine in Ireland should happen,it stands to reason that plants that have some diversity from the great masses of hybrids might stand a better chance of surviving.That means my heirlooms might withstand something like this as opposed to the hybrid crops.<

No need to go back to the ancient history of the potato famine, Melody. There are more recent events of a similar catastrophic nature. The corn disaster of the early 1970s, for instance.

For those not familiar with it, there were essentially only three lines of corn being grown in most of North America. Three that were so genetically similar only a gene tech could tell the difference. A new blight arose, for which none of these corns was resistant. The result: Complete wipe-out of the corn crop in the southern states; 15% loss for the rest of the U.S. I don't know the Canadian figures, but, presumably they paralleled those in the U.S.

The scary part is that despite this and other such problems, the U.S.D.A. still promotes the root causes of such disasters, which are monoculture, concentration of the gene pool, and the whole hybrid/gmo situation which is the antithesis of biodiversity.

Well, at the risk of digging ever deeper into the worm bin, here's another question: I've been researching some of the issues around organic gardening, and at least one resource I came across indicated that flavor (taste) is related to the trace minerals in the soil.

I understand that trace minerals are typically present in most soils, regardless of whether chemical or organic fertilizers are used, but their availability to the plant depends on the soil pH level. But a lot of what I'm reading credits organic measures with creating more stable pH levels, because chemical fertilizers can quickly and radically affect soil pH, probably more so than their organic counterparts.

Soil kept at a proper pH has more trace minerals available to the plant as it is growing and producing fruit, thus getting back to a correlation between organic growing measures and better-tasting produce, albeit an indirect link.

So are these hypotheses totally off-base? I can see where claims of "organic gardening = better-tasting produce" may be a stretch, but to this non-scientist, there's a certain logic to assuming there IS a correlation, which can also be affected by numerous other variables. (I KNEW I should have paid more attention in my science classes, LOL!)

What an interesting theory, Terry! Makes sense so far. I'd be interested in hearing more if anyone has anything to add to it or you find out more.

Boy, Go_vols: maybe you should have called this the "Can of Worms" thread. Just about the time I think someone has got it pegged, someone else comes up with another compelling opinion. Here is another aspect: Does the usefullness of organic gardening change with the areas that one is growing the plants in? I don't recall using any pesticides around here...just an occasional bit of Ivory soap & water in a spray bottle for aphids.

I don't feel particularly virtuous, since we have few pests to deal with. I use pellets of iron phosphate suspended in an oat base to deal with slugs..one of our biggest devourers, but that is to avoid killing any benign critters like birds. Would I be so "organic" if I lived where the weather was more comfortable for all these critters that feed on my garden?

I don't know about whether trace elements will affect the taste of produce to any noticable degree. As I didn't pay quite that much attention to soil science lectures at college I've just rooted around in my notes, there is nothing in there either but then that's no great surprise LOL.

It does boil down to the soil and irrigation. Poor irrigation even on organic farms can have a big effect on nutrients being leached away as much as the imbalance chemical application can cause.


This message was edited Wednesday, Apr 3rd 4:56 PM
Arrghh can't spell!

This message was edited Wednesday, Apr 3rd 4:57 PM

It's hard to defend a position you don't believe in. But just to play the devil's advocate.

1. G-V: I can control the ph of soil with selected chemicals, if that's my goal. The problem is, that isn't the goal, per se, of monoculture and the factory farm model. It's to produce as much as possible, by whatever means. There is absolutely no effect that can be controlled with organics that cannot be controlled with synthetic approaches.

2. Weez: Depends what you mean by "usefullness." There are basically two theories being applied. One is, what is the best way for me to produce a bountiful crop. The other is, what is the best way to be a steward of the land.
Pesticides are just one of the many chemicals it's possible to spread on your land and plants. In each case, there may be an immediate, short-term gain. So, if "usefullness" is restricted to the first theory, then chemicals make a lot of sense. I can, for the short haul, outperform any organic method. Sure, I'll be depleting nutrients and eroding the topsoil in the process. But so what?
BTW, once I've depleted the soil, the _only_ way to continue growing on it is with every greater quantities and types of chemicals.

You'll get no argument from me - you can definitely control the soil pH entirely with chemicals. But I think the point that the author was making (if I'm stating it correctly), is that organic fertilizers tend to act more slowly, so the pH isn't altered as quickly, which creates a more stable environment, where trace minerals are *more likely* to be available during the growing season.

And I suppose therein lies an inherent assumption that the hypothetical farmer is not being precise in how much or when fertilizer is applied, so organic is slower-acting and safer than chemicals.

And as you said, the more the soil is depleted, the more reliance on ever-increasing quantities of chemical fertilizers, which - if the assumption is true - creates ever wider swings in pH over time.

All of which really begs the question. There are so many things which contribute to the characteristic we call "taste" that you really can't focus on one of them and say, "control this and you control flavor."

Does PH contribute? I have no doubt that it does. So, too, does overall soil make-up, and amount of moisture, and daylength, and temperature, and all sorts of things.

The point really is, you go organically because it is the right thing to do. It's when you try to justify it that problems arise.

To me, following sound organic principles is like butterflies and little girls. None of them need any other justification then that they are.