Compare / Contrast: Organic -vs- Sustainable

I think the term "sustainable" has been bandied about, and means different things to different people. (some would say the term has been "co-opted").

Cabinfevers definition seems to draw on environmental sustainability concepts, and seems to have a similarity to the concept of permaculture.

Big business, both agribusiness and other sectors, have taken the term sustainable to mean economically sustainable, and the ability to sustain profits. This is clearly a different thing.

As RedHogs points out, the sustainable agriculture movement is looking for a happy medium that will bring these ideas into balance. I think the movement has some merit.

I read some stuff by John Ikerd, a professor emeritus from the U of Iowa on sustainable ag. He says that if we could have truly transparent labelling, the market would segment into many more niche markets. There would be room for people who want organic to find it, for consumers who want low-input products, for consumers who want humanely raised meat, free-range eggs, or even conventional big-ag cheap food. This seems to make a lot of sense to me.

ET1 SS, Organic certification does not exclude hybrids. They cannot be treated, and certifying agencies hope for organic production of those seeds, but there is a default that if a grower has looked in three normally organically oriented seed companies and cannot find what they need, they can use non-organically grown seed...just not GMO or treated seed.
And, of course, different certifiers take the federal standards and MAY make them even more restrictive. It depends on the certifiers.
When buying local "organic" produce, you usually can also go to the farm and talk with the farmer to determine for yourself if their production methods agree with yours.
Let's not say all organic labeled stuff is hogwash. There are many people who are truly into organics, knowing it also feeds their own families.
Ann

something else to consider when you talk about sustainable is are you talking about one farm or a coop?

If one farm then I think CFs definition sets it straight.

Something to consider though is things will most likely have to be brought in at first to rebuild the soils (particulary if the previous owner didn't take care of what was there). Then theres the issue of leaching from groundwater runoff.

To me sustainable means using practices that harm the land as little as possible, these practices should keep the health of the land relatively balanced so very low (if any) imputs are need to produce a steady crop year after year.

Organic means no pesticides/herbicides/ growth hormones/etc. You can be sustainable and still not be Organic.

Sustainable is grass roots while organic has become political. Organic is a good thing but has become nothing more than a label that agri-business has exploited till its meaningless.

__________________
"Let the beauty we love, be what we do. There are hundreds of ways to kneel and kiss the ground." Rumi

Organic and sustainable are two unrelated concepts. A grower can be totally "organic" and, at the same time, not be sustainable and visa versa.

In my way of thinking, 'sustainable' means that a farm or garden can "stand alone" without any outside inputs. To put it another way, a "sustainable grower does not purchase or import any fertilizers, nutrients or organic matter from outside sources. In other words, how can a grower be "sustainable" if he or she relies on outside sources of fertilzer imports? It makes no difference if the grower is "organic" or not. If you purchase outside inputs, you are not "sustainable."
__________________

Said it well.
My understanding goes along with his. Sustainable means you dont require outside inputs. Its basicly a closed loop system. You can provide for yourself. Seeds would come from seed savings, water could come from rain catchment systems, compost would come from shredded newspaper, food scraps, weeds, leaves, and manure from farm animals, everything comes from the farm and nothing leaves the farm. There is very little waste because everything is used in some other form. This is the most ideal form of sustainability. Obviously there are different levels of sustainability and some of us are more sustainable than others. Many people think organic and sustainable are the same thing obviously they are not, You can be very wasteful and still be organic. You can be ustainable but not organic. This is why our government stepped in (like it or not) to set a definition of the word organic. While I personally dont approve of all the goings on in the USDA and FDA and NOP standards at least they drew a line and said here is a definition and guidelines. The term sustainability is up in the air to be whatever you make of it.

exactly! Which is why the exorbitant prices being charged for "organic"foods at wally world and other grocery stores is such a joke. People are throwing money away just to make themselves feel better. I have to laugh every time I see a box of organic cheerios or corn flakes. yeah....right.

Me too. I don't trust most of the companies that have organic products. Much of the stuff labelled organic is NOT organic.

__________________

Now here is the fallacy about “sustainable” systems. Theoretically, a sustainable system, or closed-loop system, will work if you do not “export” produce from your garden/farm in the form of fruits, vegetables, meat, fiber, animal feed etc. If you do sell products from your sustainable system, you have “opened the loop.” In other words, you now are exporting your soil fertility to another location.

Consider this, the N, P, K and other nutrients that come from your soil are locked up in the produce from your garden/farm. If you and your animals are the only ones that consume this produce, and you return your waste (septage or sludge) and your animals waste (manure) back to the soil, then you have a more or less sustainable or closed loop system. However, as soon as you sell some of your produce, you have opened the loop and “your” nutrients are going to another location. You can recover the nitrogen that you have exported by growing legumes, but how do you recover the P, K and other nutrients that have left your soil in the form of produce that you have sold? You have “mined” these nutrients from your soil when you sold your crop. A good steward would replace these nutrients. But, in order to replace the nutrients, you must rely on an outside source. In a truly sustainable system, the nutrients that you import to replace the ones that you have exported from your soil should be “recycled” nutrients that originated from the food and/or feed that you have sold. In other words, to be truly sustainable in a market economy, sustainable farmers should use only manures and sewage sludges to replace the nutrients that they have exported from their soils. By doing this, a closed-loop (of nutrients) is maintained....which, theoretically, should be sustainable.

__________________
This is the government the Founding Fathers warned us about.....

Oh my.

Such a fascinating topic and folks are getting their knickers in a twist ....

Both terms have been so twisted around to mean so many different things that they are nearly useless for communication anymore.

I really think it is time that we come out with some new words so we can communicate about this sort of thing.

Or maybe we could have terms like "Organic level 1" and "Organic level 8" etc.

Sustainable is a term that can talk about one property, or about the whole planet. Context makes a lot of difference. To some folks, "sustainable" can mean not losing organic matter in the soil. To others, it can mean being able to live on their property with zero interaction with anything off of their property line.

I read something recently (in permaculture circles) about how trying to be sustainable was a weak goal at best: a good land steward would influence the land to become richer without human input. (Granted, these recipes are usually about spending a few years getting some new eco-system to take root and then you walk away and the land becomes more abundant every year without further input)

When I buy my food, there are certain things that are really important to me. If I were to buy from a farmer that sold me some organic produce and then later mentioned that he used roundup on ditches, I would be upset. I would feel that this person plays the organic game to harvest money from people that believe in organic principles. But that person doesn't really understand why I choose to buy organic. I would choose to not buy from that person in the future. I would choose to buy from a farmer that has agricultural philosophies closer to my own.

__________________
.

[raising chickens] [diatomaceous earth] [permaculture] [rocket mass heater] [lawn care]

.

Yes!! That's it!

Sustainable means making the most use of available resources (particularly the renewable ones), minimizing waste, and leaving the Earth better than you found it.

(IMO)

__________________

The more I read about "organic", "sustainable", "natural" and the like the more it becomes apparent to me how meaningless these terms have become and how meaningless all future terms will be when they go through their own evolutions.

As soon as someone comes up with a concept, gives it a name, it catches on with the buying public so that others want to use it as well then there will be folks who start pushing the envelope of what the orignal concept was all about. Eventually any of them will gradually become only a shadow of what they originally meant.

So far as I can see if this sort of thing is really important to you then you had best begin getting to know your producers. Individual integrity is where it is at. Call the system they use whatever you want, it's the person using it that will make or break it.

.....Alan.

If you MUST have 100 purity of organic, you must grow your own. Next best is to purchase products from those near you...buy local...so that you can perform your own certification test by visiting often...
Sustainable, IMO, is not achieveable on one farm, as something must be traded outside the loop for things like taxes, utilities in most instances, transportation, medical assistance at some point, etc. But to say that you grow sustainably has meaning if you are willing to define it.
There is never 100 percent anything. If you want organic or sustainable, look for the closest to 100 percent that you can get or pay for.
Ann

Thank you to everyone - especially for the links.

To clarify about our Farm: We do not sell yet to the public. I had not sold anything to the woman who pitched the fit, she was just in on the conversation between several others about a possible Farmers Market Stand in town this summer. I would not even be selling food items at the stand, my role was only to "pass the word" and help organize. I will sell only hydrangea and forsythia and perhaps echinacea (non medicinal)

I only have small amount of herbs and some landscaping plants we sell at this point. The herbs all go to only 4 places - all who know I am not certified. We do seed save and are in the 5th year but I do still buy seeds off property, collect seeds from local "old timers" (who are a great source of seed!), and collect plants local too (with permission).

We stopped all chemical fertilizers, all chemical weed killers, stopped all chemical pesticides, etc. 4 summers ago (except for on the road in) - In fact, we CANNOT use any chemicals in growing our food in that 2 of the children have serious allergies and that is partly why we began to grow our own food - so it will be clean and healthy.

The Roundup use in along a roadway, about 1.5 mile long and although I do own it, it is a "right of way" area for 3 others and they use the roundup in the sections they are to maintain. The roadway (and hence the roundup use) is about 1 & 1/2 city block from one garden and about 3 city blocks from the 2nd garden and even further from the other 2 garden sections.

I am not sure why she pitched the fit (and do not really care) but it did start me thinking about organic -vs- sustainable and I wanted to see what others think about it too. Thanks and I am off to read the links you provided. Thankyou!

PS: As suggested above someone could "lie" or fib about the roundup use but we do not like to do so (lie) and since we have said we are trying to become "sustainable" then I wanted to see if I should stop using the word "sustainable". I think, after reading your replies, that we are correct when we say we are "trying to become" "sustainable"......and we have a way to go yet.

RedHogs - thank you very much for that site link. I found the section about roundup use. There is a lot more to read. Thank you very much.

I disagree with this.
True, one can be organic and not be sustainable.
But I don't believe one can be sustainable and not be organic.
The term "Organic" lost it's value when the government eroded the standards.
"Sustainable" became the new word that communicated the values that "organic" USED to stand for.

Toxic chemicals are not sustainable. I don't care what propaganda the manufacturer's try next...
The public is growing increasingly resistant to their products, and instead of getting a clue and moving on to make products we DO want, they are just looking for clever new ways to shove them down our throats.

Take a quick peek at this Dupont propaganda:
http://marmacs.org/confex.pl?S3540.HTM

Here's a consulting service that offers advice to chemical companies:
"The new Safe & Sustainable Chemicals series covers threats and opportunities facing the chemical and related industries during the new century"

It seems that "sustainable" is becoming the latest bandwagon-buzz word.
Such a shame.

__________________
Hut on the Hill Farm
http://www.hutonthehill.org

As I pointed out in a previous post, to be truly "sustainable" one must recycle the nutrients that are in the produce (ie, food) that is eaten by humans. That means in a closed loop sustainable garden where just the owners eat the food they grow, they should be recycling their humanure or septage back into the garden.

In a more open sustainable system where food products are sold to the public, the grower would have to use the city sewage sludge as his nutrient source to maintain a closed-loop sustainable system.

In either scenario, the USDA definition of "organic" does not allow the use of human waste as a fertilizer source. Consequently, a grower who truly desires to be "sustainable" can never label his product as "organic."

__________________
This is the government the Founding Fathers warned us about.....

Yes! It's the government's definition that is making a mess of things.
At least we see where the problem ultimately lies....

You could get around this problem, though by using human waste on a green manure crop which is THEN composted for fertilizer on the food plot. Just another round-about red tape way to do things thanks to USDA, but it can be done.

__________________
Hut on the Hill Farm
http://www.hutonthehill.org

Hello, this is a topic I'm deeply interested in, so I'm coming out of lurking mode to post ... I left journalism - after 15 years in the busines - a few months ago to grow and sell vegetables, honey (have 23 hives) and shiitakes. I freelance with various publications to bring in cash. I've been reading this forum for several years, and truly enjoy the variety of opinions and the opportunity to connect with other homesteaders.
In my small corner of the world, we use manure to enrich the soil, compost, make homemade fish emulsion (dump trash fish in a bucket with water and let them stew), and treat insect infestations with non-toxic sprays if we can't pick them off by hand.
Yet, even though we try to grow responsibly, until our soil is built there may be times we have to use synthetic fertilizers. We haven't yet this year, but that time may come. We also might have to spray at some point - we haven't this year, but we would if there were no other way to save a crop.
I'm not totally happy with my approach, but this is also what we do with our bees. Practice integrated pest management, or IPM. We determine the economic threshold acceptable in our operation - ie., if there are so many mites in a hive that the bees will die if we don't do something, we do something. But, until/unless we reach that threshold, we treat with non-toxic options (mineral oil, powdered sugar, so on).
Is this sustainable? No, not by my definition of the word, and I would dearly love to be sustainable. Nor is this organic (not that I care much since 'organic' is now a government label). But, at this point in time, it is the best we can accomplish. Folks who buy from us know our practices, and seem to understand why we do what we do.

Organic can be sustainable.

Non-organic can never be sustainable.

No matter how you define "organic" or "sustainable".

__________________
.

[raising chickens] [diatomaceous earth] [permaculture] [rocket mass heater] [lawn care]

.

Just a quick question about RoundUp and similar products.

Where does the run off go?

Thanks,
Pony!

If you use non-heritage seed, it is non-organic.

Using hybrids or 'newer' strains or GMO-seed; thus can never be 'organic'. However that could be within 'sustainable'.

Now I do understand the difference between hybrid and newer strains, generally hybrids are crosses and will not reproduce true. However once you have used such a cross, through many generations and you finally get it to reproduce 'true', it is still not an organic strain, it is a new strain and not organic.

__________________
http://www.mofga.org/

http://www.mofga.org/Programs/FarmAp...2/Default.aspx