Re: after Albrecht

[Guest guest]

> ----->according to wharton in 10,000 years from eden,

> it's due to both rainfall and depletion from centuries of

> intensive use since europeans first settled the east coast.

> (he writes that the east has 'thin' topsoil layers

> as compared to the west. and that, in 1850, after early

> settlers exhausted the soil's fertility in the east,

> they began travelling west to Al and Mississippi by the

> wagonloads in search of fertile soil.) he writes that wwI

> navy inducties from *new england* had the highest rate of

> caries, not those from texas. new englanders had a 75%

> *higher* caries rate than texans, according to wharton

> - and he cites 'after albrecht, 1975' as the source of

> this info. there is no 'after albrecht' in the citations

> at the end of the book, but *albrecht* is cited for 1975

> " The Albrecht Papers. " this seems to be in conflict with

> what chi attributed to albrecht, although both sources

> say where the bison roamed is the best soil. wharton (again

> attributing the info to 'after albrecht') writes that

> the richest soils in the U.S. are along the 98th meridian,

> Western longitude. (maybe chi can clear this up?)

Hi Suze:

Clearly Albrecht is Wharton's reference, as he is mine. Albrecht died

in the 1970's, so I would assume that's what Wharton meant by 'after

Albrecht'. Albrecht left his papers to Acres, U.S.A. prior to his

death. So far, Acres, U.S.A. has published four volumes of these

papers. In reading the collection of his papers you will notice the

same theme in different papers. The volumes are just a collection of

his papers that were never produced by Albrecht to be put together in

one or more books.

Albrecht was warning in the 1940's that the movement of agriculture

towards higher yeilds at the expense of nutrition would be paid for

by overall lowered health. Do you think he was right?

When I was talking about New England soil, I was talking about it

before Europeans arrived. What is true for New England is true for

Kansas and Texas, all soil fertility in the United States has been

reduced by intensive use by European settlers.

The town without cavities was in Texas, not New England, and it

wasn't because of the flouride in the water, it was because of the

soil fertility in the region of the town in Texas. Albrecht again is

the source for this information.

Chi

[Guest guest]

> Now all this leads to how do imported foods, varying soil

> regional fertilities and even organic food nutritive

> values give us even an inkling that we're getting

> better nourishment now?

> Anything marketed is only as good as the creator's

> knowledge (if its used at all), resources (seems if financial

> comes easy the other two are lost) and morals (to the result

> good or bad of the creation).

Hi Wanita:

When food is imported you have no chance to know what fertility it

was grown in. You also don't know if the fertilizer strategy was

designed for nutrition or yield (but you can guess). You also don't

know if the crop is a hybrid, a crop created for yield at the expense

of nutrition. Here is a quote from Albrecht on hybridization of

crops: (Volume I, page 374 of " The Albrecht Papers " )

" Selection and propagation of corn and wheat, coupled with

hybridization of the former, have been proclaimed widely as reasons

for their large acre yields, measured, of course, only as bulk and

bushels. Little attention has been paid to the declining soil

fertility by which the photosynthesis or accumulation of sugars and

starches imphasizes itself in that increasing bulk, while the

biosynthesis of proteins, which would consume or convert much of

those bulky reserves by that process, is decreasing. Hybridization of

plants and selection for high yields of vegetative mass represent,

for plants, the equal of castration for the animals in that they

eliminate the struggle for the survival of the species. Instead, it

give a psychiological pile-up of carbohydrates by which the sunshine

absorbed by the plant is used with a reported efficiency of 30%, when

for protein production that efficiency is reported at only 3%.

For the plants, the declining soil fertility functions like a kind of

fattening procedure and with ratios between the equivalent of

fattening and growing that transcend even those for the pig. It is

the declining soil fertility, then as it is giving plant values of

only fattening potential for animals, that is, undermining the warm

blooded segments as well as the plant segments of the biotic pyramid,

including animals and man. Less healthy plants degenerating, as it

were, in their own physiology may well be inviting diseases and pests

rather than that these have become such powerful predators. "

Originally published in 1954. Ignored ever since.

Chi