Author Topic: John P. Reganold + luomu?  (Read 4454 times)

Ufomaster

  • Jäsen
  • **
  • Posts: 64
    • View Profile
    • Email
John P. Reganold + luomu?
« on: 15.04.11 - klo:19:27 »
Tervehdys, mitäs olette mieltä tämän miehen luomututkimuksista, tulokset on pitkälti pro-luomu ja julkaisuja löytyy Naturesta lähtien aika monessa arvostetussa julkaisussa?

http://css.wsu.edu/people/faculty/soils/Reganold.htm

Heikki Jokipii

  • Ylläpitäjä
  • *****
  • Posts: 25399
    • View Profile
    • Email
Vs: John P. Reganold + luomu?
« Reply #1 on: 15.04.11 - klo:20:59 »
Minuakin on moitittu täällä siitä, että - täällä suomenkielisellä sivustolla - viittaan, linkkaan ja lainaan vieraskielisiin lähteisiin tai niiden suuntaan.

Olisiko siis "Ufomasterille" mahdollista tehdä jonkinnäköinen yhteenveto suomenkielellä siitä, mitä kyseinen henkilö väittää? Keskeiset teesit.

Ufomaster

  • Jäsen
  • **
  • Posts: 64
    • View Profile
    • Email
Vs: John P. Reganold + luomu?
« Reply #2 on: 15.04.11 - klo:22:15 »
Tässä haastattelussa tulee varmaan keskeisimmät pointit aika hyvin esille:

http://hlifemedia.com/2010/09/htalk-interview-john-reganold-on-organic-farming-and-sustainability/

Quote
John Reganold has been comparing organic and conventional agricultural systems since he noticed the drastic difference between them in a soil sample 25 years ago. He is an agro-ecologist who has always been interested in how land is used, and is the lead author of a study on the sustainability and nutritional benefits of organic farming, which was published in the journal PLoS ONE yesterday.

Tässä linkki itse tutkimukseen:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0012346

Ja sitten taas haastiksen pariin:

Quote
John Reganold: Our research team was interested in looking at both the soil quality and also the strawberry quality, including the nutritional quality on real commercial farms. So it had to represent reality.

Quote
MC: The only difference then was the actual farming process.

JR: That’s correct, and that’s all we wanted. We wanted to be able to say you have two different management systems. If you have these two management systems producing strawberries, what are the effects on the soil, and the soil DNA, the genetics – and what are the effects on the berries, meaning, their shelf life (how fast do they rot), their nutrition (vitamins, antioxidants), and taste? People often will say, “well, these particular berries taste better than these berries,” or, “organic berries taste better than conventional.” But that’s anecdotal. You really need to have scientific evidence for that. So we actually tested that. Our hypothesis was that organic strawberries produce healthier berries from healthier soils, because those are some of the reasons why people buy organic berries. We didn’t know that was the case, so we decided to check it out. So we had to make sure that the methodology was strong enough and done correctly so that we could test the hypothesis.

Quote
JR: One thing about strawberries is that they are one of the higher foods in antioxidants and vitamin C, so our study found that with the organic berries tended to have significantly more dry weight. So, if you have more dry weight, that means you have “more strawberry” in the strawberry, which means you’re getting more strawberry when you eat an organic strawberry. We also found that organic berries have more antioxidants, more phenolics, and more vitamin C – all very important for the health of humans. And, organic berries – we didn’t test this, but we know this from other studies that have been done – have much lower residues or no residue of pesticides on the berries, so, in that sense, it’s healthier. If people are concerned about eating pesticides or if they want more vitamin C, it would be better to eat the organic berries.

Quote
With two of the varieties there was no difference – but with one of the varieties, the organic berry was sweeter, more flavorful, it was even preferred aesthetically, it had better color to the tasters. There are very few taste tests done comparing organic to conventional foods, so, that was quite a finding right there.

Quote
MC: How significant was the antioxidant difference?

JR: About 10%. The organic had about 10% more total antioxidant activity than the conventional berries, and the numbers were similar for vitamin C and phenolics.


Quote
MC: What did you find about the health of the soil?

We can basically say that the organically farmed soils were not only healthier and higher quality, but they were also more genetically diverse, and likely more resilient to stress that might come upon that soil system. Those were pretty significant findings too. We really got to look at soil as well as the berries themselves.

Quote
MC: How much of a difference was there in shelf life?

JR: We basically took the strawberries and set them on the counter and did what we called the rotting test. You can, basically, watch them rot over a series of days. Most growers and stores that buy strawberries want them to have a long shelf life, maybe five days and not rot. We actually thought that the conventional berries would rot more slowly because they had this array of pesticides. But what happened was the opposite: The organic berries rotted significantly more slowly. So, after a five or six day period, you could have 25% more good organic berries than conventional, on average over the varieties. That’s a plus when you’re selling berries because you want the berries to be able to last longer. And be fresher. To me, that was a surprise.

Quote
MC: With so many benefits – nutritional, soil health, shelf life – to the organic system, what would be the advantage of farming conventionally?

JR: The advantage for a grower is yield. You get higher yields in general. The industry data from these two companies for these two years showed that the conventional strawberries were producing 25% more yield. Now, at the same time, organic berries were more than making up for that in price premium. The price that a grower can get for an organic berry will more than make up for that 25% yield difference. A grower may get about 40% more for growing an organic berry. Another advantage to conventional farming is that it’s easier to grow conventionally – you have an arsenal of pesticides to use which the organic farmer can’t use, and because there are more conventional farmers, there is more information out there to help you farm conventionally. Organic farming is more intensive and there is less information out there on how to do it.

Quote
But if you look at those variables in general, and you look at the studies that have been done, in general, organic systems are more sustainable than conventional systems.


Lähdetään liikkeelle näistä pointeista, tuskin tarvitsee kääntää?

Ufo



Heikki Jokipii

  • Ylläpitäjä
  • *****
  • Posts: 25399
    • View Profile
    • Email
Vs: John P. Reganold + luomu?
« Reply #3 on: 15.04.11 - klo:22:43 »
Tässä haastattelussa tulee varmaan keskeisimmät pointit aika hyvin esille:

[...]

Lähdetään liikkeelle näistä pointeista, tuskin tarvitsee kääntää?

Uf

Ei, vaan nimenomaan pitää  kääntää.

Netti on täynnä englanninkielisiä keskusteluja samasta asiasta, tämä keskustelu on suomenkielinen *).  Satunnaiset viittaukset / lainaukset ovat toki sallittuja.

Minulle itselleni tällä palstalla huomautettiin taannoin asiasta. Otin opikseni.

Toinen asia - joka ei ole toki pakollinen - niin miten voitaisiin ottaa asia kerrallaan?

Mikä on keskeisin pointti tai mistä voisi aloittaa?

___________

*) ja kielilain mukaan myös ruotsinkieltä voi vapaasti käyttää ..  :)
« Last Edit: 15.04.11 - klo:22:49 by Heikki Jokipii »

Ufomaster

  • Jäsen
  • **
  • Posts: 64
    • View Profile
    • Email
Vs: John P. Reganold + luomu?
« Reply #4 on: 15.04.11 - klo:22:58 »
Selvä, jatkan ensi viikolla tästä kun on paremmin aikaa.

Ufo