Chapter 6. (not vs.) Organic and Inorganic Gardening

Perhaps the greatest controversy in the gardening field during the past two decades has enveloped the relative merits of chemical nutri­ents and organic nutrients. The arguments have been so confusing for gardeners—even for those who are scientifically trained—that a thorough discussion of both "organic" and "inorganic" viewpoints is indispensable to any consideration of soils.

Most experienced plantsmen and soil specialists today occupy a middle ground, using organic and chemical materials as seems best suited to the needs of a particular soil, plant, or circumstance. But those who are at the extremes—violently pro-organic or anti-organic —press their arguments so vehemently as to almost drown out the moderates. The logical way to resolve this argument is to try to state both sides clearly and allow facts to speak for themselves.

Primitive man knew nothing about feeding plants. He simply and without awareness relied entirely upon native fertility or upon nat­ural replacement of fertility for all of his crops. When a field became unproductive he merely moved on to fresh land. Nature's bounty was accepted without thought of how, what, or why. This approach, in basically the same form, continued through the centuries. The Greeks, Romans and those who came after them made some progress in plant feeding, with all of it based on natural manures and similar organic materials.

As the years passed, growers showed an increasing awareness of the need for replenishing the soil—restoring food elements that plants removed. It was not, however, until the experiments of Justus von Liebig (1803-1873) that man really began to break away from dependence on natural manures. Liebig's discoveries came at a fortu­nate time for the human race, since new naturally fertile land for crops and pastures was running out.

Early Chemical Fertilizers

Discovery of phosphorus and superphosphate as plant nutrients (one of the great scientific highlights of the nineteenth century) plus investigations of nitrogen, potash and other elements, resulted di­rectly from von Liebig's work.

A fundamental error in much of the thinking of his day (and one which persists even today) was in considering soil as a bank into which deposits of fertilizer could be made and withdrawn at will. No account was taken of the role of soil organisms, the vital nature of humus, the self-regenerating capacity of soils and the need for re­placing certain elements not yet proved essential to plant growth.

Because use of certain chemical elements resulted in large in­creases in crop yields, demand for these elements in even higher purities became so insistent that fertilizer manufacturers devoted more and more of their research and production to satisfying this demand. When these higher-analysis products became widely avail­able, however, a point of diminishing returns was reached. Plants actually showed signs of doing less well when fed with these "pure" chemicals than when fertilized with natural manures or with ferti­lizers of lower purities.

Today, we realize that plant nutrition is a far more complex process than merely supplying the so-called "essential" elements of nitrogen, potash and phosphorus. We know now that plants fed with highly purified forms of plant food are not poisoned by some toxic substance. True, the plants look sick and are subject to disease and insect attacks because they lack vigor. If, however, those elements which are eliminated in purification processes are restored, growth will quite possibly be superior to that produced with even the richest organic manures.

Here it is important to make one point: the existence of a true toxic commercial fertilizer element that will poison plants and can be passed on to animals and man has never been demonstrated. Of course, there are chemicals which, if supplied to the soil in excess, will cause injury to plants, yet these same chemicals may be needed in small amounts for normal growth, whether derived from mineral (chemical) or organic sources.

Also there are powerful chemicals such as selenium which are absorbed by plants and can poison man, but these are carefully ex­tracted from chemical fertilizers in manufacturing. Such poisonous elements are much more likely to occur in natural plant foods than in chemicals.

Rise of Organocultism

Time passed and chemical fertilizers became the standard. Then, about thirty years ago, the philosophy of a feeding program based on pure chemicals received the challenge that started the controversy we have today. It came from Sir Albert Howard, of England, who was born a Shropshire farm boy, but moved to the West Indies as a young man. Later, in India and Africa, where he moved to preach his ideas of plant nutrition, he worked to perfect a theory that humus and compost alone were enough for healthy plant growth, and that chemicals interfered with natural processes.

Unlike many of his followers, both of the past and today, Sir Albert was a man of solid scientific background. An honor graduate of Cambridge University in England, he was a competent mycologist, trained in scientific methods and observation. Many conclusions he drew from his experiences in India were sound, but not necessarily all-inclusive. His bias in favor of organic matter was a natural result of the climates in which he worked. In the tropics, loss of humus and other organic matter from soil goes on at all times, night and day, winter and summer alike. Never during the entire year's cycle do soil temperatures drop low enough to keep avid bacteria and fungi from attacking every scrap of organic matter that falls to earth.

Liberally watered by rainfall (which further favors soil micro­organisms), India's soils are all but devoid of humus. Also, with as much as 300 inches of rain in a single year, no soluble chemical re­mains available for more than a day or two at the most. In one test, Sir Albert applied composted organic materials to soils. The result was a phenomenal increase in yields, as was to be expected, because of the longer life of organic matter in the soil. Such results could not possibly be duplicated by use of pure chemicals under East Indian conditions, since as much as a pound of nitrogen in soluble form applied to 1,000 square feet of soil could be washed below the root zone of garden plants almost overnight.

A strong case against the superiority which Sir Albert claimed for organic plant foods in tropical climates was offered by the soilless culture used successfully on tropical islands during World War II. Because of the lack of true soil on many of these islands, vegetables were grown in tanks containing all necessary nutrients in soluble form. Production was much higher per square foot than in soil. Nutritionally, the nutrient culture vegetables were ranked as equal to the best.

Toward the end of his life, Sir Albert moved back to England and continued to preach his gospel of organic gardening. Out of this has come a cult of organoculture which holds certain vague tenets but fails to clearly define these to the satisfaction of most scientists. Be­cause the organocultist credo is not stated in words that can be answered with simple scientific evidence, perhaps the best way to give the story is to sum up and analyze a few of the many discussions I have had with various proponents of the all-organic theory.

THE CASE AGAINST ORGANIC GARDENING

The question is not whether organic matter is good or bad. Almost any individual who has worked with soils will agree that organic material is a basic ingredient of gardening. If I were planting a 40-foot oak at this moment, you may be sure that all the well-rotted manure or compost I could afford would be mixed with the soil around the ball of earth, and that there would be at least 6 inches of organic matter in the bottom of the hole. In making a lawn or vegetable garden I would prefer to work into the soil a layer of at least 3 inches of organic matter. All through this book you will find recommendations for the liberal use of organic matter. If anyone wants to make me a present of a load of manure, I would welcome it as much as any other thing I know. In short, I believe in or­ganic matter.

My argument, then, is not with those who think natural sources of plant nutrients are good but with those who are turning otherwise normal human beings into superstitious, frightened faddists who see a death's head in every ordinary grocery store cabbage. These fad­dists, in their terror of a mysterious "something" in chemical fer­tilizers, are spoiling the fun of gardening (and eating) for everyone. This cult holds that continued use of chemical fertilizers (or chem­ical insecticides and fungicides too, for that matter), particularly on edible plants, is dangerous and should be barred by law. It further holds that recommendations by recognized authorities for the use of such chemicals is an organized plot by commercial firms to profit from the poisoning of men, women, and children.

This cult further states that all needs of plants for elements essen­tial to growth and life can be met from natural organic wastes with­out fortifying or supplementing such natural fertilizers with chem­icals. Within this cult we find an amazing assortment of individuals. A few of them are outright liars. Some are self-seeking opportunists doing exactly what they accuse commercial fertilizer manufacturers of doing—profiting from the sale of a spurious product.

Most of them, however, seem to be decent, honest folk, self-deluded, but looking for right answers to life's problems, except that they are looking down the cellar steps instead of out the window. From various sources they have accumulated strange, unproved theories about the way plants grow, what they need and how these needs can be supplied. These theories are phrased in vague, pseudo-scientific language which does not follow ordinary principles of plant physiology.

What is Organic?

My first difficulty in opposing these organocultists arises in trying to define what they mean by organic. To a chemist, any product is organic if it contains a carbon particle or radicle. This includes urea, which was originally discovered in urine, but was later produced synthetically. If urea is separated from urine it cannot be distin­guished in any way from the same chemical produced synthetically. The organocultist, however, accepts urine but rejects urea because it is not a pure organic product.

Obviously, then, the organocultist does not use the word organic in its true scientific sense—that of chemical structure. Perhaps he insists that for a substance to be usable, it must exist in a living organism or have been derived from such an organism. Here I fore­see even more difficulties. To illustrate, let us fertilize a pasture with purely chemical nitrogen, such as ammonium sulfate, then allow steers to feed on the grass and return their wastes to the soil. Does the nitrogen in these wastes become pure and organic? Does beef scrap from the meat of these cattle change from inorganic to or­ganic form?

If, however, in the process of decay, some of the contained nitro­gen is set free in the atmosphere and is later fixed electrically at a power plant such as Muscle Shoals, will it still be organic—or in­organic? How can a molecule of "organic" nitrogen be distinguished from one that is purely "inorganic"?

Next let us examine fixation of nitrogen from the atmosphere. The most avid proponent of natural products could not object to nitrogen fixed as an oxide by lightning in the atmosphere. This is certainly as "natural" a product as one could imagine. Yet no man in his right mind would argue that air is organic unless he happened to be riding in the New York subway in rush hour. Even clovers when they extract nitrogen with the help of bacteria must absorb a product which was originally pure nitrogen gas, without a particle of carbon in it—definitely a chemical in every way. When, however, this nitro­gen is converted into protein by clover plants, the original particle is there, unchanged in any way. At what point is the changeover made? Does combination with sulfur and half a dozen other chemicals, plus the process of growth, make the nitrogen any better or change the nature of its molecule? Unless organocultists can prove plants split atoms and recombine elements in new forms, they must logically admit that one nitrogen product is an exact duplicate of another.

Complex Point

About the only consistent point with organocultists is that they seem to prefer complex materials rather than simple, uninvolved combinations of only two or three chemicals. Is it because plant wastes are more complex in structure that they are superior to ammonium nitrate, for example? There is one grain of truth here that bears discussion. Because it is complex, such an organic waste sub­stance might be more complete and contain one or more elements not included in a chemical plant food. At the same time it cannot be denied that every element found in organic matter can also be sup­plied in mineral or chemical form; indeed, as we know, plants are incapable of absorbing the nutrients in the original complex form.

If complexity is part of their credo and complex substances are necessarily better than simple ones, how then do organocultists ex­plain water? Here is a simple chemical—a combination of two atoms of hydrogen with one of oxygen, without which life would be im­possible. Yet surely the most avid organic proponent would not dare to call water organic.

What about limestone? We are told that good old ground lime­stone rock is wonderful stuff—a natural "fertilizer." If, however, we expose that same rock to the action of fire, the product is a vile chemical which must not be allowed to touch soil. Does this add to the logic of the organocultist argument?

Just about as unconvincing are the arguments advanced in favor of phosphate rock against superphospate made from this same rock. Superphosphate, they insist, is horrid stuff. It has been treated with sulfuric acid to make it more available to plants, but this treatment is supposed to make it a "poison." But how in the name of logic does the organocultist think phosphate rock becomes available if not through dissolution by natural sulfuric acid in the soil? If not dis­solved in this way it can remain unchanged for thousands of years, completely unavailable to plants.

Scientific Rebuttal is Difficult

Unfortunately, facts never seem to bother many organocultists. Defeat one argument with scientific evidence and they will bob up with half a dozen more, each requiring the equivalent of a master's thesis to refute fully. In trying to answer some of these arguments, I often feel like Hercules fighting the Hydra. Cut off one head and two more grow in its place. Or as one scientist phrased it, "I feel as though I am punching a bag of wind that merely distends in another direction every time I jab it."

The honest scientist is at a disadvantage in answering vague argu­ments. To give a satisfactory answer would involve giving elemen­tary courses in organic and inorganic chemistry, colloidal chemistry, the theory of pH and ionic exchange, bacteriology, entomology, nematodology, plant physiology, and half a dozen equally complex and time-consuming fields of study. To give you something of an idea of the type of argument that must be refuted, take a friend of mine, who is certain that his wife's recovery from "arthritis" is proof of the validity of organic gardening. He presents this "history" in evidence:

Because she had what he called "arthritis," they moved to Florida. She began to eat organically-grown vegetables and her arthritis dis­appeared. He is perfectly sincere in insisting this proves organic gardening can cure disease. Frankly, this is about as poor a case of proof as I have ever heard presented. First, any true scientist would insist that instead of one woman, he would want at least 100, as much alike in age, race, general cultural background and habits as possible. They would all have to be married to my organic-gardening friend. What's more, he would have to treat them all alike. No fudg­ing—each one would have to dress alike and eat a normal diet full of despicable chemically-grown food.

The next step would be to inoculate half of these women with arthritis in some way. Since we do not really know what causes arthritis (in spite of the claims of organocultists) this would be difficult to do. The other 50 women would serve as a control by re­maining on their "chemical" diet. The experiment would have to be continued over several years to be sure results would be statistically significant. During this period, SO arthritic women would have to be fed a diet grown organically—compost-fed potatoes, manured cab­bages and what not. After a specified length of treatment, it would not be enough to have one or two of the subjects recover from arthri­tis. Unless most of them were cured the experiment would be rated as non-conclusive.

Such an experiment is obviously impossible, but I felt that stating it in some detail would show up the vagueness of what organic gar­deners offer as proof.

The Chink in the Armor

There is one major weak spot in the organocultists' armor. It is their habit of citing authority, often out of context and often without fully understanding what they are quoting. I feel it is only fair that if they quote a certain individual as an authority on gardening, they accept his views on that subject. They don't have to recognize him as an authority on love, politics, the Einsteinian theories or the atom bomb, but they are stuck with him on gardening.

With this in mind, I wrote to half a dozen acknowledged author­ities on gardening whose writings have been quoted from time to time by organic-gardening publications. I asked these experts for their opinions on five specific questions:

1. Do you think chemical fertilizers cause damage to plants or cause plants to grow abnormally?



2. Do you think plants fertilized with chemicals rather than pure organics are more subject to insect attacks?



3. Are plants fertilized with chemicals more subject to plant diseases?



4. Are organically-fed plants better protected against insect at­ tack and diseases?



5. Do you think that eating chemically fed plants will cause cancer, arthritis and poor teeth?

Out of the six expert gardeners contacted, all replied with a flat No to all five questions. In addition, the American Medical Associa­tion, which disqualified itself on the first four questions, emphat­ically denied that plants fed with chemical fertilizers could be proved to cause cancer, arthritis or poor teeth.

One reply was from Harry O'Brien, whose national magazine column, "Diary of a Plain Dirt Gardener," was read by millions every month. His answers were typical. He said:

1. Chemical fertilizers used according to accepted standards are not dangerous to plants and do not cause abnormal growth.



2. Chemical fertilizers do not make plants more susceptible to attack by insects. In fact, they do just the opposite. The well-fed, thrifty plant is less susceptible to attack.



3. This is even more true of plant diseases. Well-nourished plants almost invariably withstand disease better.



4. I do not think feeding plants organic fertilizers keeps insects from attacking them. I just don't believe it.



5. The fellows who say that plants grown with chemicals will, if eaten, cause cancer, arthritis and poor teeth are just ex­ posing their ignorance."

Some years ago I made a speech before a convention of the Men's Garden Clubs of America. In that talk, I warned the audience against careless and off-hand use of insecticides such as DDT. (I would say the same things about aminotriazole today.) I made no plea for prohibition of such chemicals but merely urged care in following the package directions when using any insecticide. This speech was quoted in one of the organocultists* journals. Since the organocultists thus have recognized me as an authority, I feel I am entitled to express my views of what they claim:

Credo

I believe that the whole "all-organic" movement is inspired by blind, unthinking prejudices. I know that sound, healthy plants can be grown with chemical fertilizers and that human beings can eat them with safety, benefit and pleasure. I feel it is up to organocul­tists to name, in terms intelligible to sane people, just what elements exist in chemically-fertilized plants that make them harmful, or what beneficial elements occur in organically-grown plants and not in those grown with mineral fertilizers.

I believe that man's knowledge of gardening, farming and the application of new scientific discoveries has been set back half a century by the pseudo-scientific pronouncements of the organo­cultists.

I take the stand that we who advocate the use of chemicals and organic matter do not have to prove our case: the shoe is on the other foot. It is the organocultist who must prove his anti-chemicals case by presenting evidence that will stand up when submitted to scrutiny by intelligent, knowledgeable men and women.

Among the familiar pieces of "evidence" used by the proponents of organic fertilizing are the figures from State and Federal sources that show a steady increase in the number of deaths from heart disease and cancer. Here, they say, is positive, irrefutable proof that chemical fertilizers are killing us. The actual death figures, of course, are accurate. But the way organocultists use the statistics reminds me of the time I "proved" statistically that a decline for a certain period in the American birthrate was due to increased sales of elec­trical refrigerators because, on the chart, one curve dropped at the same rate that the other climbed. Arguments that chemical fertilizers cause disease are about as valid. The government's death figures are accurate but the organocultists' interpretation is not.

What is actually happening is that we are saving more young people and extending the life span of the middle-aged and older people so that everyone lives longer, only to succumb to degenerative diseases such as heart failure and cancer which otherwise might never have been able to attack. Federal figures on median age at death are convincing proof that a false use is being made of vital statistics. If the organocultist-type of logic is permissible, are not advocates of chemical fertilizers justified in claiming that striking declines in deaths from smallpox and pneumonia are due to increased use of non-organic (chemical) plant foods? Imagine the poor gar­dener, faced with extravagant claims of organocultists on one hand and an advertisement on the other which reads, "Why die of pneu­monia? Grow cabbage with ammonium sulfate and live!"

There is an amusing side to the organic gardening cult's refusal to recognize the identical nature of elements in chemical and organic plant nutrients. I have in my file a card that offers me FREE, as a bonus for subscription to a venerable organoculture journal, A SOIL TEST KIT! Presumably this test kit includes the usual chemical reagents (at least I have not heard of any kits that use organic reagents). Since such simple kits cannot differentiate between chem­ical and organic elements, I am afraid the editors have made a horrible admission.

What Caused the Original Error?

Anyone who has given any thought to the conflicting claims in this controversy must have tried to figure out what happened to Sir Albert Howard's powers of observation. I am going to venture a guess. What probably set Sir Albert thinking was his observation of the effects of sodium nitrate on soils. Nitrate of soda, as it is called in the trade, was and is a favorite source of nitrogen among British gardeners. It produces effects that might well support claims made against all chemicals.

When used regularly on clay soils, this chemical causes almost immediate deflocculation of the clay. That is, the electrical charges holding clay to lime particles are neutralized and sodium carbonate is formed. The result is a greasy, hard-to-work soil which closely matches the organocultists' dark pictures of chemically-fed gardens. So, if you must use nitrate of soda, do so never oftener than once a year. Better yet, use ammonium nitrate which leaves no harmful residue.

Sodium carbonate is another material that in excess is quite toxic to plants and causes effects which seem to support organic gardening claims. Another such material is potassium chloride (muriate of potash). This chemical kills certain kinds of bacteria that are able to fix nitrogen from the air. Destruction of these beneficial organisms could degrade the soil to a point where effects would be harmful. Here an organic source of potash—wood ashes would do a better job than muriate of potash. However, the other garden form of potash, sulfate of potash, will also provide the needed element with­out destroying helpful bacteria.

Ferrous ammonium sulfate, or FA.S. as it is called, is a valuable material for producing a quick green color on a sickly lawn (a good trick to use when you want a quick treatment to put a lawn in top-notch condition for some special event). However, FA.S. is known to be harmful to a number of soil organisms if watered into the soil or compost pile. For this reason, it is best used as a foliar application on grass, as a light spray. Do not use so much that it drips freely and runs onto the soil.

Danger from F.A.S., however, is lessened if the soil is well aerated. In dense, tight, waterlogged soils, ferrous ammonium sulfate stim­ulates bacteria that produce hydrogen sulfide, a chemical harmful to garden plants.

Chapter Digest

Whenever you think of organic/inorganic gardening, be sure to use "and" and not "vs" between the two words. Organic gardening "prohibits" the use of chemical fertilizers, insecticides, etc. Inorganic gardening, in its strict sense, employs only chemical materials. But actually, "inorganic gardener" is a term invented to identify one who is not wedded to organics. Both kinds of fertilizer, in particular, are vital to a balanced soil that can properly support plant growth.

The organocultists have performed a good service in calling attention to the waste of natural sources of fertility, to the vital nature of organic matter in good soil condition, and to many other phases of culture which were being forgotten in the mad modern rush for high production with chemical fertilizers. But these contributions are spoiled by the organo­cultists' refusal to see any side but their own. If science and common logic mean anything, the organocultists will never prove the existence in organic matter of any vital ingredient for plant growth which cannot be supplied chemically, or demonstrate the existence of a pure toxic element in chem­icals that is not present in organic materials.

Are You Ready To Move Onto The Next Lesson? Click Here...