>>1031967Coming from a biologist, the "organic is more nutritious" idea is complete horseshit and that info graphic is garbage.
"Organic food" is a scientifically unfounded term. The best approximation for it's meaning is, "Botanical crops grown on an area of land that has not been treated with synthetically produced fertilizers, herbicides, or insecticides."
Anyone with a basic understanding of plant physiology knows that plants do not break down fertilizers, soil microbes and fungi do. So the efficacy of a particular fertilizer source on improving plant growth depends vastly more on your soil chemistry and soil biota than whether the substance was produced in a factory or by an animal. Plants, just like animals, are very particular about their internal chemistry. Just because you put manure and wood ash on your plot instead of a chemical N/P/K mix and lime makes no different to your plant, so long as you apply either properly and have appropriately suited soil biota. A crop will always have the same internal chemistry so long as its chemical and energetic inputs are the same. If they have the same internal chemistry, they contain the same nutrients in the same relative quantities.
The supposed benefits of "organic" foods are actually attributable to improved farming practices used in their production. People growing "organic" are usually much smaller scale farms that can afford to use much more labor intensive methods that promote a healthier pedosphere, AKA soil ecosystem. However, these practices are not limited to only "organic" farming, and as a gardener/small farmer you would more than likely see smaller yields as a complete disuse of modern chemical treatments, rather than smarter usage over indiscriminate spraying, will lead to higher competiotion from weeds and greater losses from pests.
TL;DR - How does no pesticides = dramatically different plant biochemistry if the chemicals don't affect the plants, you dummo. Also >no units of measurement
