Re: Re: high-carb & farmland use

[Guest guest]

--- soilfertility <ynos@...> wrote:

> Aubin, you make general statements. I just want you

> to explain them.

Pardon the sin of making general statements. The

original statement that growing high-carb food

" promotes better use of

farmland and therefore cheaper food for the third

world " , upon which I was commenting, was general as

well. The stated purpose of this list does not

include discussing the minutae of soil fertlility

theories.

> Perhaps you might want to do some research on the

> relationship

> between nutrition and soil fertility.

I have, and obviously you're entirely missing my

point, or ignoring it, which is that not all land over

the entire earth is, or can be with current human

abilities, equally " fertile " . Speaking in terms of

feeding people, some land can produce more and better

food growing animals rather than, or in conjunction

with, plants, by taking advantage of certain animals'

superior ability to extract the nutrition available in

the plants that can grow in that given soil. If you

simply disagree with this basic premise, say so and be

done with it. I'm not going to list every possible

specific scenario, nor am I going to try to change

your mind.

> The

> nutritional value of a

> grain, tuber, vegetable, oily seed is not determined

> by its species

> or its petigree, but rather by the soil fertility

> that produced it.

> Likewise, the nutritional value of lettuce,

> cucumbers or the like is

> determined by soil fertility.

Are you saying that wheat, potato, broccoli or

sunflower seed all grown in the same soil will have

the same nutritonal profile, regardless of their

different species? I don't buy that. Of course soil

fertility determines the value of the food grown on

it, but it can't make lettuce as nutritionally

valuable as broccoli.

> Yes, please include your recommendations on base

> saturation

> percentage for cations.

I have no " recommendations " , I'm not a consultant or a

professional grower. And as I said, I don't believe

this is the appropriate forum for such technical

discussions, even if I had such knowledge (which I

never claimed). You obviously have me at a

disadvantage in this instance, so if that makes you

feel good, have at it.

> Root depth is not determined by the plant species,

> it's determined by

> soil fertility.

So grass, vegetables, and a nut tree growing on the

same fertile soil will have the same root depth? I

don't buy that either. I know soil condition

influences root depth, but it does not make one

species of plant have the same root structure as

another species.

> Your statement shows a lack of understanding of soil

> fertility and

> nutrition.

I understand that soil fertility determines nutrition.

That was not my issue, and it does not change my

point.

> Root depth is determined by soil

> fertility. Trees don't

> feed animals very well.

You might want to tell that to the animals who live

primarily off trees (i.e. giraffes, certain monkeys,

sloths, koalas, certain birds, etc.), even in the

presence of a wide range of other plants.

> Trees have very little

> protein for their size

> and,

Protein concentration is not the most important aspect

of food value for every species of animal.

> according to the soil scientist,

> Albrecht, they are

> nature's last stand against the erosion of soil

> fertility.

How nice for you, that your guru knows the intentions

of nature. The only purpose of trees is a last ditch

effort to preserve soil?

> Have you

> ever heard of Albrecht?

Yes, enough to know there's hardly a consensus

regarding his work. Not to say it's not valuable, I'm

sure it is, but I've read enough to know there are

different interpretations of his work among different

people. If yours is the right one, congratulations.

I'm not arguing your level of knowlege about cations

and whatnot, I was trying to make a GENERAL POINT

about land use. Which I have, repeatedly, and now I'm

done. By the way, what is your level of experience

with growing food? Mine is basic, but I don't pretend

to be an expert.

> Have you read

> " Nutrition and Physical

> Degeneration " ?

Parts of it, not all, but I'm not arguing that soil

fertility is unimportant. On the contrary, I believe

it is paramount, but not every inch of the earth can

have an equal concentraton of " fertility " , and many

populations need to make the best use of the limited

land they have, which IMO includes growing both

animals and plants for food.

This is getting too long winded, so I'm not going to

address the rest of your points. If you want to

assume I'm not able to do so, feel free. You're

obviously the expert.

> I am so happy that you speak for everyone else on

> this list. I won't

> mind if your two-year-old keeps you too busy to

> respond to my post.

Oh, sorry to disappoint you. I hope you'll be pleased

to know this is my last post on the subject, the last

word is yours so make it good. I think this is

getting way too far from the stated purpose of this

list, and I'm not interested in continuing the

conversation with you anyway.

My sincere apologies to everyone else for the

unpleasant tone this conversation has assumed.

Aubin

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Aubin

I think most of us on this list live in the world of reality and know that

the food we are eating and the ground we are growing it on is probably not

perfect in fact I know very little if any is perfect. Most of us are trying

to find a way to deal with this and dedicated to doing so. There people

though that think we need to have perfect tomorrow and those of us in the

world of reality know it is not going to happen over night. I have been

farming and dairying long enough to know that I can't change what has

happened to my soil or the genetics of my cows over night and if I could

there would be somebody out there that would tell me I was stupid. ( Just

human nature I guess) It is just nice to know that there are people who

appreciate what you are doing and that give you encouragement along the way.

I hope you continue to be an asset to this group.

Chi I value everything you say also. I think we need to know what perfect

is in order to know what to strive for. You too are an asset to this

list. Hope this helps

in Ne

Aubin Parrish wrote:

> --- soilfertility <ynos@...> wrote:

>

> > Aubin, you make general statements. I just want you

> > to explain them.

>

> Pardon the sin of making general statements. The

> original statement that growing high-carb food

> " promotes better use of

> farmland and therefore cheaper food for the third

> world " , upon which I was commenting, was general as

> well. The stated purpose of this list does not

> include discussing the minutae of soil fertlility

> theories.

>

> > Perhaps you might want to do some research on the

> > relationship

> > between nutrition and soil fertility.

>

> I have, and obviously you're entirely missing my

> point, or ignoring it, which is that not all land over

> the entire earth is, or can be with current human

> abilities, equally " fertile " . Speaking in terms of

> feeding people, some land can produce more and better

> food growing animals rather than, or in conjunction

> with, plants, by taking advantage of certain animals'

> superior ability to extract the nutrition available in

> the plants that can grow in that given soil. If you

> simply disagree with this basic premise, say so and be

> done with it. I'm not going to list every possible

> specific scenario, nor am I going to try to change

> your mind.

>

> > The

> > nutritional value of a

> > grain, tuber, vegetable, oily seed is not determined

> > by its species

> > or its petigree, but rather by the soil fertility

> > that produced it.

> > Likewise, the nutritional value of lettuce,

> > cucumbers or the like is

> > determined by soil fertility.

>

> Are you saying that wheat, potato, broccoli or

> sunflower seed all grown in the same soil will have

> the same nutritonal profile, regardless of their

> different species? I don't buy that. Of course soil

> fertility determines the value of the food grown on

> it, but it can't make lettuce as nutritionally

> valuable as broccoli.

>

> > Yes, please include your recommendations on base

> > saturation

> > percentage for cations.

>

> I have no " recommendations " , I'm not a consultant or a

> professional grower. And as I said, I don't believe

> this is the appropriate forum for such technical

> discussions, even if I had such knowledge (which I

> never claimed). You obviously have me at a

> disadvantage in this instance, so if that makes you

> feel good, have at it.

>

> > Root depth is not determined by the plant species,

> > it's determined by

> > soil fertility.

>

> So grass, vegetables, and a nut tree growing on the

> same fertile soil will have the same root depth? I

> don't buy that either. I know soil condition

> influences root depth, but it does not make one

> species of plant have the same root structure as

> another species.

>

> > Your statement shows a lack of understanding of soil

> > fertility and

> > nutrition.

>

> I understand that soil fertility determines nutrition.

> That was not my issue, and it does not change my

> point.

>

> > Root depth is determined by soil

> > fertility. Trees don't

> > feed animals very well.

>

> You might want to tell that to the animals who live

> primarily off trees (i.e. giraffes, certain monkeys,

> sloths, koalas, certain birds, etc.), even in the

> presence of a wide range of other plants.

>

> > Trees have very little

> > protein for their size

> > and,

>

> Protein concentration is not the most important aspect

> of food value for every species of animal.

>

> > according to the soil scientist,

> > Albrecht, they are

> > nature's last stand against the erosion of soil

> > fertility.

>

> How nice for you, that your guru knows the intentions

> of nature. The only purpose of trees is a last ditch

> effort to preserve soil?

>

> > Have you

> > ever heard of Albrecht?

>

> Yes, enough to know there's hardly a consensus

> regarding his work. Not to say it's not valuable, I'm

> sure it is, but I've read enough to know there are

> different interpretations of his work among different

> people. If yours is the right one, congratulations.

> I'm not arguing your level of knowlege about cations

> and whatnot, I was trying to make a GENERAL POINT

> about land use. Which I have, repeatedly, and now I'm

> done. By the way, what is your level of experience

> with growing food? Mine is basic, but I don't pretend

> to be an expert.

>

> > Have you read

> > " Nutrition and Physical

> > Degeneration " ?

>

> Parts of it, not all, but I'm not arguing that soil

> fertility is unimportant. On the contrary, I believe

> it is paramount, but not every inch of the earth can

> have an equal concentraton of " fertility " , and many

> populations need to make the best use of the limited

> land they have, which IMO includes growing both

> animals and plants for food.

>

> This is getting too long winded, so I'm not going to

> address the rest of your points. If you want to

> assume I'm not able to do so, feel free. You're

> obviously the expert.

>

> > I am so happy that you speak for everyone else on

> > this list. I won't

> > mind if your two-year-old keeps you too busy to

> > respond to my post.

>

> Oh, sorry to disappoint you. I hope you'll be pleased

> to know this is my last post on the subject, the last

> word is yours so make it good. I think this is

> getting way too far from the stated purpose of this

> list, and I'm not interested in continuing the

> conversation with you anyway.

>

> My sincere apologies to everyone else for the

> unpleasant tone this conversation has assumed.

>

> Aubin

>

> __________________________________________________

>