That makes sense. It's very easy to pump up organic fruit using excessive nitrogen, the results ought to be close. The organic nutrients break down to the same chemicals as those used in conventional growing.
I don't think you can really make a good scientific assessement unless you control all the variables on both sides, organic and inorganic, because surely two different organic crops might show different nutrient contents, the same would be true of two inorganic crops, depending on fruit size, weather, soil and so on. Frankly, I'm getting tired of both sides butchering science. All of this isn't based on anything scientific even if people claim to use statistical analysis. The right way to find out would be to do two plots side by side in identical soil an climactic conditions, one organic, one conventional, then compare results after 5 years of growing. Now that would be much more believable. On Aug 1, 2009, at 10:10 PM, Dave Rosenberger <da...@cornell.edu> wrote: Many studies on nutritional differences are meaningless because of flawed methodology. For many fruits and vegetables (and especially for apples), the antioxidants and other beneficial compounds are found primarily in the skin or external tissues where they serve to protect plants from attack by insects and diseases. Given that scenario, it is easy to see that smaller fruits will have higher concentrations of these beneficial compounds than will larger fruits due to a higher surface-to-volume ratio for smaller fruits. Any study that does not match up fruit size when comparing organic and conventional health benefits should therefore be disregarded as flawed science unless one is willing to assume that organic fruit is always smaller. I have not surveyed the literature to determine how many studies have included this sizing factor in their comparisons, but I would guess that the majority have not. To follow this one step further, the blueberries in my home garden were subjected to a hailstorm in late May and the hail marks were very evident at harvest. As I picked these cosmetically flawed berries, I began to wonder if blueberries that sustained hail damage would have produced extra anti-oxidants as they healed off the hail damage. So perhaps someone should do a study to determine if hail-damage fruit is actually more healthy than cosmetically perfect fruit? These sorts of results must depend on which studies are included in the review. Also, on the perspective of the funder of the study--The UK Food Standards Agency has been saying for years that there is no nutritional difference between organically and conventionally grown foods. For another perspective, see: http://www.organic-center.org/science.nutri.php?action=view&report_id=126 Brian Caldwell Department of Crop and Soil Sciences 905 Bradfield Hall Cornell University Ithaca, NY 14853 ba...@cornell.edu 607-255-4747 Cell: 607-280-3652 Fax: 607-255-2644 -- ************************************************************** Dave Rosenberger Professor of Plant Pathology Office: 845-691-7231 Cornell University's Hudson Valley Lab Fax: 845-691-2719 P.O. Box 727, Highland, NY 12528 Cell: 845-594-3060 http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/pp/faculty/rosenberger/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- The 'Apple-Crop' LISTSERV is sponsored by the Virtual Orchard <http://www.virtualorchard.net> and managed by Win Cowgill and Jon Clements <webmas...@virtualorchard.net>. Apple-Crop is not moderated. Therefore, the statements do not represent "official" opinions and the Virtual Orchard takes no responsibility for the content. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- The 'Apple-Crop' LISTSERV is sponsored by the Virtual Orchard <http://www.virtualorchard.net> and managed by Win Cowgill and Jon Clements <webmas...@virtualorchard.net>. Apple-Crop is not moderated. Therefore, the statements do not represent "official" opinions and the Virtual Orchard takes no responsibility for the content.
