Organic vs. Conventional Foods: Which is Better?

There is quite a debate currently raging over organic verses conventional foods.  Conventional agriculture has the momentum of the last decades and corporate dollars.  But the organic movement is not to be underestimated with their up and coming grassroots power of past decade.  Unfortunately, there is an awful lot of hype and misinformation out there currently.  One side says there is absolutely nothing wrong with crops grown with chemical pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers.  While the other side says organic is the only way to go for both environmental and health reason.  Well, to be honest, both of these extremes are wrong and lack a balanced perspective.  Both organic and conventionally grown food have their advantages and disadvantages.  And a more rational look at these different methods will make us a little more well balanced.  So, organic food being the latest and greatest thing, lets take a look at some of its advantages, disadvantages, and misconceptions 

Organic Grown Food
Benefits: 
1. Organic crops lack potentially harmful pesticide and herbicide residues.  While there is not a proven connection between pesticide and herbicide residues and illnesses such as cancer there is some connection.  Research very lacking in this area.  My guess is the connection is rather small.
2. Nutrient levels such as vitamins and minerals are almost always higher in organic grown fruits and vegetables of pretty much every type.  There are 60 years of solid scientific research to back this up, no questions asked.  In some cases organic has way more nutrition and in other cases similar nutrition.  Overall however, organic food is slightly more nutritious. 
3. Taste is often better.  Yes, this is my experience and not scientifically based.
4. Lack of chemicals is better for the environment, again lots of scientific basis for this.
5. Generally lack preservatives that contain heavy metals and dangerous chemicals such as arsenic.  Yes, the waxy coating that many fruits and vegetables have on them typically contain heavy metals and other chemicals that serve as preservatives in shipping and marketing.
6. Can be more productive when grown on a smaller scale.
7. Generally encourages farmers to take care of their land and therefore the ecosystem.
Disadvantages:
1. Generally less food is grown overall on a large scale.
2. More manpower is required to grow crops without pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers.
3. More expensive.  This is partially because of the greater manpower required for growing and the lower productivity.  Mark-up mostly is a premium simply because it is organic.
4. Natural organic pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers are not always better for health and the environment.  If they are applied in the wrong way they can be harmful.  Generally though, organic is less harmful though.
5. May rot faster due to lack of preservatives.
Misconceptions:
1. Organic grown requires less fossil fuels.  This is not necessarily true and depends completely on the organic growing process as well as how far the food was shipped.  If you are wanting to eat food that require the least amount of fossil fuels to get to your plate, but food that is grown as close as possible to you.

So in the above, I have tried to be as unbiased as possible and let you know where my own biases are.  Most of the above is not even debated as controversial, but is rather accepted as fact.  In my opinion, it is better to eat organic food for health reasons, to avoid chemicals which potentially can cause diseases but especially for added nutritional value.  In addition, I absolutely despise that dangerous metals and chemicals are applied to foods as preservatives.  I also prefer to eat organic for environmental and economic reason being organic generally is better for the environment and I also like helping out the generally smaller scale organic farmers.  And lastly, if you know how to pick out good quality fruits and veggies, the taste is almost always better.

Is it necessary to eat entirely organic?
Absolutely not.  Chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides are necessary on a limited basis in the agricultural system.  Without these our ability to produce food would be severely limited.  I currently believe that organic production should increase, conventional production should decrease, and they need to meet somewhere in the middle.  Our bodies and the environment are able to handle responsible amounts of these chemicals so there is no reason to completely ban them from you home or the country.  What these responsible levels of chemicals are, I don't know.

Is the conventional food supply safe?
Of course, the next question is: how safe is the conventional food supply?  Again, this is my opinion, I think the conventional food supply is relatively safe.  While chemicals are dangerous and harmful to the environment, the residues on foods are monitored and are reasonable.  Another reason why eating completely organic is not necessary.  While vitamins and nutrients are higher in organic foods, conventional foods still have good levels of these.

So I guess, eat organic when you can and if you can't don't worry about it.  Far better would be to grow your own food in your own back yard and to make sure you are eating all your servings of fruits and vegetables every day.  A backyard organic garden has huge benefits both to the environment and personal health that far outweigh worrying about organic vs. conventional.  And making sure you eat all your daily servings of fruits and vegetables is far more important than eating only one serving of organic veggies.
Overall, the debate between organic and conventional food is important but it needs to be balanced and prioritized.

Soil, Roots, and Desert Plants

 

In no other ecosystem does soil structure influence where plants grow more strongly than in the desert.  Soils in all ecosystems have strong influences on where plants grow, but the effect is particularly strong in deserts. Being most desert plant adaptations center around accumulating and conserving water, and desert soils have strong influences on where water accumulates, this connection between soil and plants makes sense.  Furthermore, desert soils are relatively diverse when compared to soils in other regions.  The presence or absence of argillic and or caliche horizons show how extremely different one soil can be from another in the desert.  Other regions have too much rain to develop nearly impenetrable argillic and caliche horizons.  Or regions with more rain or freezing temperatures create conditions that are too unstable to develop soils as long and as strong as some desert soils.

There are three common soil-plant communities in the desert.  1. Shallow rooted plant communities growing in soils with caliche and or argillic horizons, 2. Deep rooted plant communities growing on soils without caliche or argillic horizons, and 3. deep rooted plants growing in soils with massive amounts of caliche.  Lastly there are also mountain soils which we will not talk about here due to their non-uniform and unstable nature.  Mountain soils often are not considered soils at all in most situations due to their unstable nature.
The different ages of alluvial fans along bajadas determine how these soils and corresponding plant communities are distributed.  Check out this previous blog entry on alluvial fans and desert soils.  An understanding of how alluvial fans are deposited and form bajadas in the desert is important to understanding soil and plant distributions.

The shallow roots of this Foothills Palo Verde are growing just above the whitish layer of caliche.  Erosion has removed the soil above the caliche in this picture.  After erosion, harder caliche is left in place and shallow roots growing just above the impenetrable soil horizon are exposed.

1. Shallow rooted plant communities growing on soils with argillic and caliche horizons
On the upper bajada, the alluvial fan closest to the mountain, shallow rooted plants compose the community. These are older soils on the bajada and therefore have highly developed argillic and caliche horizons.  These horizons are thick and heavy, resisting water infiltration and root penetration.  Though this may seem like extremely poor conditions, most desert plants are highly adapted and even thrive under these circumstances.  Shallow impenetrable soils horizons allow only shallow rooted plants to root themselves.  Shallow roots avoid impenetrable horizons by accumulating their roots just above.  Water pools in the soil above the caliche allowing an abundance for water thirsty plants.  When only caliche is present, slightly deeper shallow rooted plant occupy the area, such as Saguaros and Foothills Palo Verde.  Areas with an arigillic horizon and caliche have the most shallow rooted plants such as Cholla cacti and Triangle-Leaf Bursage.

How to identify these areas:  Reddish colored soils closer to the mountain, shallow rooted plants such as Saguaro, Triangle-Leaf Bursage, Cholla cacti, Foothills Palo Verde.  These areas generally are sloping gently.  In areas of erosion such as along washes whitish colored soils indicating caliche may be present.

A Creosote Brush community growing on light colored soil without caliche or argillic horizons.

2. Deeper rooted plant communities growing on soils without caliche or argillics
The younger alluvial fans far away from the mountain have very little soil development.  This means no argillic or caliche soil horizons allowing for deeper water and root penetration.  Primarily Creosote Brush occupy these areas with their often six foot deep roots.  Shallow rooted plants generally cannot survive in these areas being water penetrates deeper than their roots reach.

How to identify these areas: Lighter colored soils further away from the mountain that are nearly level.  Plants are generally Creosote Brush and sometimes White Ratany, which is parasitic to Creosote.   White Bursage is also often common in these areas.

Desert pavement.  Usually indicates massive caliche development under the surface.  

3. Deep rooted plants growing on massive amounts of cliche
These are extremely old alluvial fans with very thick caliche horizons.  The massive amount of caliche prevents water from penetrating and the only place for plants to grow are through cracks.  Plants are few and far between and typically only Creosote Brush are present.  The soil surface will typically be nearly level, covered with black pebbles called desert varnish, and be far away from the mountain.  Generally these are most common in the western portions of the Sonoran Desert around the Colorado River.

How to identify these areas: Nearly level areas of desert varnish generally far away from the mountain.  Creosote Brush will be about the only plant and they will be few and far between.  Sometimes patches of Teddy-Bear Cholla will be present.

Transitional areas: exceptions to the above rules
Of course, these are not hard and fast rules, they are generalizations.  For example, transitional areas between community and soils 1 and 2 above will often have a mix of Creosote Brush and Triangle-Leaf Bursage, the first being deep rooted and the second shallow rooted.  This typically indicates a poorly developed caliche that allows for the shallow rooted Bursage to grow.  The poorly developed caliche also allows for deep Creosote roots to penetrate.

Also, for plant community-soil 3 above, areas adjacent to desert pavement without the pavement have had erosional disturbance.  This disturbance allows more water to penetrate the soil as well more roots to penetrate.  Typically there is still caliche so these communities are dominated by shallow rooted plants.

So a little knowledge of how to identify soils and about the rooting patterns of specific plants goes a long way in helping you understand the local Sonoran Desert environment.  When exploring the Sonoran Desert, by looking for these indicators you can begin to piece together what is happening along a bajada.

Northern Arizona Juniper Woodlands

Utah Juniper Woodland and Semi-Desert Grassland near Ash Fork, Arizona.  This is the high  elevation portion of the Great Basin Desert.

I recently spent some time exploring Northern Arizonas Juniper Woodlands and Semi-Desert Grasslands.  Arizona is an interesting state in that it has many different desert types including the semi-tropical Sonoran Desert, the hot Chihuahuan and Mojove Deserts, and the cool Great Basin Desert.  Of these deserts they also have high and low elevation portions.  Northern Arizona for the most part is high elevation Great Basin Desert.  West of Williams, Arizona Semi-Desert Grasslands composed of grasses such as Tobosa, Side-Oats Grama, and Galleta dominate below 3000 or so feet.  The area I spent time in was about 4300 feet and had these grasses with interspersed Utah Juniper trees.  Most people do not find these woodlands nearly as attractive, and many consider them a nuisance, compared to higher elevation conifer forests.  Spending a little time in them, observing and absorbing them for what they are will show these are in-fact beautiful and interesting forests to be appreciated.

The most obvious feature of Juniper Woodlands is of course the Junipers.  As trees go, the Utah Juniper is rather small, only growing to 12 feet or so.  Northern Arizona around Ash Fork west of Flagstaff is characterized by poor dry soils, cold wet winters, and hot dry summers.  When most people think of the desert they do not think of trees, grass and snow but the Great Basin Desert of northern Arizona is exactly that.  Amazingly, last winter I got stuck in 24 inches of snow in this same area.  The Utah Juniper and Desert Grassland thrive under these conditions.  

Utah Junipers and Side-Oat Grama Grass growing among basalt rocks.

Hiking among the Junipers a few birds make themselves obvious as the fly from tree to tree, the Scrub Jay and Ringneck Dove.  Both birds are particularly fond of the Juniper, but especially the Jay.  Utah Junipers produce an abundance of marble sized green to brown colored berries these birds depend on.  These berries often remain on the tree up to two years just waiting for some animal or bird to come by.  Yes, it does actually seem that these berries wait for birds to eat them being they not only provide the bird with food, the bird also helps the tree.  When the bird eats the berry, the seed passes through the bird unharmed.  Seeds passed through birds or other animals actually significantly increase their chances of germination and are transported to new locations.  Not only that, Jays may cache, or hide, berries in the ground for later use, which may be forgotten later and grow into baby Junipers.  If it were not for these birds the large berry and seed would simply fall to the ground beneath the tree.   Then, if the seed did germinate it would have to compete with its mother for soil and moisture, which of course is the wrong way to start off life.  So as a result, these birds are responsible for the planting of these Juniper woodlands.

Tobosa and Grama grasses growing in the finer textured soils.

Apart from Junipers, Ash Fork, Arizona is known as the flagstone capital of the world.  Flagstone is a particular type of sandstone that breaks into smooth flat rocks people use as patio pavers.  Numerous flagstone mines can be found among the sandstone and basalt lava flow hills in the area.  This sandstone creates sandy soils while the basalt breaks down into rocky clay soils.  Exploring the area and doing a little examination of the soils, it can quickly be found that Junipers, especially the larger ones, prefer the rockier soils along with Side-oats Grama Grass.  Alluvial, or water deposited, fine textured soils are generally characterized by grasses such as Tobosa, different Gramas, and Gallete.  Also interesting were the numerous very small Junipers within these finer textured soils.  Historically these fine textured alluvial soils have only had grasses being junipers seem to prefer the drier rockier areas.  Fire exclusion during the past century however has allowed seeds carried to these areas by birds and other animals to grow unhindered.  

A Colorado Pinon Pine growing Under the canopy of a Juniper.  This pine most likely was carried here as a seed and planted here by a Scrub Jay.

While almost all of the trees in the area are Utah Juniper, a few small Single-Leaf and Colorado Pinon Pines can be found.  This is quite odd considering I couldn’t find a significant mature pine for miles and great numbers of Pinons are even further away.  How did these small trees get here?  Pinon nuts are large and heavy so they couldn’t have blown or washed here.  The answer lays again in the Scrub Jay.  All these small Pinon Pines likely were carried as seed by Scrub Jays and hidden under the Junipers so they could have a snack later on.  Unfortunately, the Jay forgot and the seed germinated, growing into a small tree.  This is both good and bad for the tree.  In this area at least it got to grow into a tree but there is not enough rain to support a Pinon Pine for long.  Junipers do much better with 12-14 inches of rain annually than Pinons do.  Pinons need at least a few more inches of rain to do well.  

The grassy openness of these woodlands make walking through them quite easy and enjoyable except for the occasional cholla or prickly pear cactus.  The trees are big enough however to make orientation through the area difficult at times.  While it is open, you can’t see far most of the time, so finding your way can be difficult.  This also makes it quite easy for wildlife to make a quick escape.  Elk are abundant in these areas and utilize the Junipers to hide as well as food.  Elk are most commonly seen in the early morning feeding in open grassy areas.  Coyotes also are abundant and can provide some great night time yipping and howling entertainment.  But after a few hours of day light or less, these animals easily hide themselves from intruding humans among the Junipers.