• Manure - Farmers in India use cow dung and cow urine to fertilize their farms, and it works wonder. Vermicast is the waste generated by worms. Japanese farmers have been using Shimoge (fertilizer from the bottom of a person or human waste) to fertilizing their lands. In summary, the waste generated by all living beings (including plants) is rich in various minerals and nutrients that the plants need. Liquid nutrients can be extracted from these and used in Hydroponics; for example, Aquaponics uses fish excreta as a source of nutrition for plants. 
• Humic and Fulvic Acid - Humic acid and fulvic acid are naturally occurring compounds that improve root efficiency and promote the absorption of nutrients. 
• Seaweed - Seaweed is another rich source of nutrients. It increases the elongation of root cells, and in turn, root mass as well, leading to more significant and faster plant growth. Though seaweed occurs naturally in nature, its use is not allowed in Organic production in India. The same goes for fish excreta and human waste as well.
• Microbial derivatives - Microbial sources can be used to pre-process the organic nutrients before incorporation into Hydroponics.

Inorganic plant nutrition is any plant nutrition additive that originates from non-living sources or does not naturally exist in the nature. Inorganic nutrients are nutrients synthesised in factories, example minerals or fertilisers.

When it comes to plants, they can absorb nutrients only in the form of ions (which are devoid of carbon and hence inorganic). So for a plant, a nutrient is a nutrient; it does not matter whether it originated from an organic source or an inorganic one. All the nutrients must first be broken down into inorganic ions before plants can absorb them. With this clarity, the question that arises is, is there then no difference between organic and inorganic nutrients. Let's try to find the answer to this query by developing an understanding of how these nutrients work.

In an Organic nutrient, the ions are bound to compounds through chemical bonds. These bonds get broken down slowly by bacteria, earthworm, and other microorganisms, ensuring a slow release of ions for the plant root to uptake. This release process happens in damp conditions and temperatures of above 50 F. Due to this mechanism, there are several distinct advantages and disadvantages of using Organic Nutrients.

• The use of Organic nutrients improves soil texture and composition due to the presence of Organic matter.
• Since nutrients get released at a slow rate, a lower amount of nutrient leeches into the ground. Overall less number of application (or lesser quantity) is required.
• The chances of burn caused by excessive nutrition are abysmally low while using Organic Nutrients.

• Since nutrients are released slowly, plants may get less amount than they need and take longer to grow.
• It is difficult to pinpoint exact nutrient composition (available for plant intake) in the organic nutrients. Thus some specific nutrient deficiencies may occur in plants fed solely on Organic Nutrients.
• Organic nutrients usually cost more than their inorganic counterparts.
• At lower temperatures, the efficacy of nutrients may decrease significantly. This phenomenon happens because the process of ion release from Organic nutrients needs higher temperatures.

In inorganic nutrients, ions are released rapidly (there are now some slow-release inorganic nutrients as well) and become available for plants to uptake irrespective of temperature and humidity levels.

• The ions are precisely measurable and available for uptake readily. Thus the results are quick and effective.
• Inorganic nutrients cost lower than their organic counterparts.

• Since the ions are released fast, many applications may be required at regular intervals.
• A lot of nutrients can get leached into the groundwater through the soil, thus having an adverse environmental impact (when used in ground-based farmland at commercial scale).
• A higher dose of inorganic nutrients may lead to an excess of nutrients, thus leading to leaf burn in plants.

You are wondering which one you should buy. Well, there is no single correct answer to these. The answer will depend on what you are looking for in the first place.

Let's try to find out.

Go for the local one. All the crops, whether grown organically or conventionally, start losing nutrients once harvested. The longer it stays on shelves, the higher is the nutrition lost.

So, if you are looking for nutrition, distance matters the most. Your best bet would be the one locally grown, followed by the one grown conventionally. The imported one will be lowest in nutritional content.

But we have ignored one factor. The imported one is Organic, and it should have higher nutritional content, to begin with, right? 

Wrong. Various scientific studies have time and again proved that the nutritional difference between Organic and conventionally grown food is almost nil. You can go through a comprehensive study conducted by Standford Medical School that analyzed 237 published papers to arrive at this conclusion.

Consider this study from Penn State University. 

At 10 C, Spinach loses half of its nutritional content in six days. Increase the temperature to 20 C, and it will take only four days to lose half its nutritional content. Consider the average temperatures and storage conditions in India, and you may need to eat almost 3-4 times the regular dose of spinach to get any nutrient at all.

Local, in the above case. Distance matters, and like nutrition, the antioxidant level also falls with time. But what if you can choose between Organically grown local food and conventionally grown local food? In this case, you should go with Organic. Organic food has higher antioxidants than conventionally grown food. Let us understand why?

Conventionally grown food has to fight fewer pests due to the use of strong pesticides. Also, it spends more energy on growing bigger fruits due to use of synthetic nutrients which act faster and are more effective. This means that the plant gets to spend less of its resources in fighting bugs and diseases and hence produces fewer antioxidants. Organically grown food, on the other hand, has to fight a large number of pests and insects. It thus needs to generate enough antioxidants to be able to do so. Hence, food grown Organically has a considerably greater extent of antioxidants.

Either locally grown or Organic. If you have both available locally, go for local Organic. This is because the food grown organically grows slowly and in a wholesome fashion. Food grown using inorganic means grows faster and may have a lower level of antioxidants and other taste imparting elements.

Neither of the three. Go for something which is certified pesticide-free. Though various studies (including the Standford one cited above) will tell you that food grown Organically has up to 30% fewer pesticide residue than food grown conventionally. But, there is a catch. The numbers they quote are only for synthetic pesticides. These studies do not measure the presence of Organic pesticide residues which can be as dangerous, if not more, as the synthetic pesticides. You can read more about it here.

Cow's milk is a rich source of Protein. Up to 80% of the milk protein is made up of Caseins. Within Caseins, beta-casine is the 2nd most common type of casein in cow's milk. The distinction between A1 and A2 Milk arises from the kind of beta-casein present in milk (A1 beta-casein or A2 beta-casein).

The A1 casein is considered a genetic mutation in the older cow breeds. However, this mutation was for the good of dairy farmers as it led to up to a two-fold increase in yield of milk produced by them. For human health, whether A2 milk is better than A1 or not is a question which is settled yet. Studies and scientific research exists that support both sides of the debate. However, it has been established beyond doubt that A2 milk is healthier for infants and smaller mammals. Also, milk produced by most of the mammals like goat and sheep (and including humans) is similar to A2 grade. Thus to err on the safer side, we can assume that A2 milk may have more health benefits than A1.

Whether the milk is organic or not has nothing to do with if it is A1 or A2. Assuming A2 milk to be organic is a common mistake committed by many (including the article published in the national daily that we covered above). For milk to be certified Organic, the two most important aspects are:

• The feed given to the cows should be grown in an organic farm (ideally own farm or else on a farm in the local area)
• Growth hormones, or antibiotics or other such chemicals should not be injected to cows to increase the yield.

Apart from the above two, other factors are also specified under NPOP for Organic Milk. An interested reader can go through section 3.1 through 3.3 of NPOP to understand all requirements for producing certified Organic Milk.

Coming back to the 'Mint' article, it listed 11 farms across Delhi/NCR, Bangalore, and Mumbai that provide Organic milk. I visited the website of each one of them and here is what I found.

This may be because of the additional cost a farm will have to incur in getting certified. The extra expense will further increase the end price of milk which is already costlier due to higher input costs (to maintain organic standards) and lower yields (in case of A2 cows). 

Of the 11 farms listed in the Mint article, the total number of farms that sell certified Organic Milk is an astonishing zero.

This is the most surprising part. A national daily tells you that you can buy Organic milk form 11 sources, 4 of which (6 if you include the farms who use organic only in brand or tagline but do not claim the milk to be organic separately) themselves do not claim to be selling Organic milk. 

We began 'The Organic Debate' series by mentioning that "Organic is one of the most misused marketing buzzwords." We validated that point once again today. I hope our articles will help you get better informed and choose wisely.

Happy Growing!

That pesticides of Organic origin are safer is one of the most widely accepted myth, even in regulatory circles. It is surprising that unlike for inorganic pesticides, there are limited guidelines or monitoring the usage of Organic pesticides. It is a foolhardy belief ignoring most available cues in nature all around us. Most of the deadliest known poisons to humans are of Organic origin. One of the Organic pesticides, 'Rotenone,' the use of which went unregulated for almost three decades, and was considered safe for Organic application, was finally banned in the US after it was found to be deadly to humans.

From a health-conscious consumers' point of view, whether pesticides were used on a farm or not is not as relevant a question as to how much of it ends up in the food one finally consumes. Thankfully, to answer this question, there are published studies that show the numbers. You can find the report of one such study conducted by USDA here.

All these studies unequivocally establish one fact. The amount of pesticide residue is much lesser in food grown organically (approx 25% of the samples) as compared to the one produced using conventional means (approx 60% of the samples). However, since most Organic pesticides are considered safe, these studies were designed to check for the residues of synthetic pesticides. There is a general lack of consensus and clarity on how the numbers will look like if the scope of these studies included Organic pesticides as well.

Not Surprisingly, both the believers and the detractors of the safety of Organic food, use the same set of studies to promote their arguments. The former citing the consistent findings on synthetic pesticides in all such studies. The latter, using the lack of any data on Organic pesticides in any of these studies.

When it comes to pesticides, both organic and conventional food contains pesticide residue. If you are worried about synthetic pesticides, switching to Organic will help you cut your exposure to the same. However, if you are concerned about the overall level of pesticides (including organic pesticides also), there is no conclusive data available to be able to determine which side you should take and if and how much premium you should pay for organic food.

The cost of getting accredited under NPOP is quite high and not something that small and segregated farmers can afford. This led to the rise of PGS. PGS is a self-certification scheme in which a group of farmers come together and audit each other's fields and certify that organic practices are being followed. In 2015, the Govt. accepted the PGS program as a valid standard to grow Organic produce and brought it under the Ministry of Agriculture.

Within PGS, there are two level of certificates

Even after these two systems being in place, one will find a multitude of products wrongly labelled or marketed as Organic on retail shelves. This is soon going to stop now. Taking cognizance of the growing malpractices and misinformation campaigns about Organic produce, the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India has issued the draft Organic Food Regulations 2017. These cover both NPOP and PGS and are likely to be implemented effective July 2018. Once applied, it will also include labelling provisions, so anybody trying to mislead consumers through incorrect labelling will be liable for penal action.