Re: high-carb & farmland use

[Guest guest]

--- maxpi_44 <maxpi_44@...> wrote:

> I think the low-fat (high carbo) diet was made up by

> the World Health

> Organization because it promotes better use of

> farmland and therefore

> cheaper food for the third world but it seems to be

> unhealthy for

> those that adopt it.

Some farmland is more suited to producing plant foods

efficiently rather than animal foods. However, a lot

of the land in many poor countries is not good, arable

land and will never produce a significant amount of

plant food for human consumption, but could actually

be much more efficiently used to raise animals for

milk or meat in a free-ranging, foraging situation.

The idea that all land is more efficiently utilized by

growing plant food instead of animals is a falsehood.

I know this is addressed at the WAPF website, although

I don't remember offhand exactly which articles. Dr.

Byrnes also talks about it in his Myths of

Vegetarianism article:

http://www.powerhealth.net/selected_articles.htm

Aubin

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

At least one of the articles is here in the myths and truths about

beef article. Look about half way down.

http://www.westonaprice.org/myths_truths/myths_truths_beef.html

Kroyer

Minneapolis, MN

> Some farmland is more suited to producing plant foods

> efficiently rather than animal foods. However, a lot

> of the land in many poor countries is not good, arable

> land and will never produce a significant amount of

> plant food for human consumption, but could actually

> be much more efficiently used to raise animals for

> milk or meat in a free-ranging, foraging situation.

> The idea that all land is more efficiently utilized by

> growing plant food instead of animals is a falsehood.

>

> I know this is addressed at the WAPF website, although

> I don't remember offhand exactly which articles. Dr.

> Byrnes also talks about it in his Myths of

> Vegetarianism article:

> http://www.powerhealth.net/selected_articles.htm

>

> Aubin

>

> __________________________________________________

>

[Guest guest]

> Some farmland is more suited to producing plant foods

> efficiently rather than animal foods.

Hi Aubin:

Please tell me what kind of land is more suited to producing plant

foods efficiently rather than animal foods.

> However, a lot of the land in many poor countries is not

> good, arable land and will never produce a significant

> amount of plant food for human consumption, but could

> actually be much more efficiently used to raise

> animals for milk or meat in a free-ranging, foraging

> situation.

If land " will never produce a significant amount of plant food for

human consumption " , how would you expect the same land to produce a

significant amount of food for consumption by animals?

> The idea that all land is more efficiently utilized by

> growing plant food instead of animals is a falsehood.

I wonder what whoever had this idea meant by " efficiently " .

Chi

[Guest guest]

Everyone:

There is also an excellent discussion of the land/animals/food, etc., issue

at http://www.beyondveg.com. Also, there is a section called " Can

vegetarianism end world hunger? " at http://www.animalrights.net.

SCB

>From: " skroyer " <scott@...>

>Reply-

>

>Subject: Re: high-carb & farmland use

>Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 22:00:52 -0000

>

>At least one of the articles is here in the myths and truths about

>beef article. Look about half way down.

>

>http://www.westonaprice.org/myths_truths/myths_truths_beef.html

>

> Kroyer

>Minneapolis, MN

>

>

> > Some farmland is more suited to producing plant foods

> > efficiently rather than animal foods. However, a lot

> > of the land in many poor countries is not good, arable

> > land and will never produce a significant amount of

> > plant food for human consumption, but could actually

> > be much more efficiently used to raise animals for

> > milk or meat in a free-ranging, foraging situation.

> > The idea that all land is more efficiently utilized by

> > growing plant food instead of animals is a falsehood.

> >

> > I know this is addressed at the WAPF website, although

> > I don't remember offhand exactly which articles. Dr.

> > Byrnes also talks about it in his Myths of

> > Vegetarianism article:

> > http://www.powerhealth.net/selected_articles.htm

> >

> > Aubin

> >

> > __________________________________________________

> >

[Guest guest]

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

> Hi Aubin:

> Please tell me what kind of land is more suited to

> producing plant

> foods efficiently rather than animal foods.

These things are addressed in the links I provided in

my last post, but here's a general outline:

I was referring to land that is able to support

high-calorie or nutrient-dense plant crops that are

compatible with the human digestive system. Such land

probably has deep topsoil, a full complement of

minerals and soil life, friendly weather, and

reasonably gentle topography. (Yes, of course

topsoil, minerals and soil life can be adversely or

positively influenced by human actions, but let's

assume responsible stewardship by the farmers in this

case.)

>

> If land " will never produce a significant amount of

> plant food for

> human consumption " , how would you expect the same

> land to produce a

> significant amount of food for consumption by

> animals?

Because animals can convert plants which are totally

unsuitable for humans into food humans can use. Take

for instance goats, foraging across a high desert,

eating shrubs, grasses and other things humans can't

digest. The goats can get all their needs met by such

forage, be healthy, and produce nutritious milk and

meat, whereas the humans on that land without the

goats would get far fewer calories and nutrition from

the same area.

Browsing, grazing or foraging animals can thrive on

land that is physically unsuitable for cropping of

plants which humans can digest, like land that is

steep, rocky, arid, sandy or wooded. The ruminant

digestive system allows them to extract nutrition from

plants which would do a human no good if eaten

directly, allowing the animal to both thrive and

produce food suitable for humans, and of course if

properly managed returning nutrients to the soil in a

circle of life. Non-ruminant, foraging omnivores such

as chickens and pigs can also fit into the same

picture.

> I wonder what whoever had this idea meant by

> " efficiently " .

Efficient as in optimal nutrient and calorie

availability. For example, the high desert mentioned

above can provide more food by goats foraging and then

producing milk or meat for humans, than if the humans

tried to harvest only plant foods off that same land

(in a properly-managed system, not stripping,

over-stocking or allowing over-grazing).

Aubin

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

> I was referring to land that is able to support

> high-calorie or nutrient-dense plant crops that are

> compatible with the human digestive system. Such land

> probably has deep topsoil, a full complement of

> minerals and soil life, friendly weather, and

> reasonably gentle topography.

So why would that type of land be less suitable for producing animal

food? Please explain what " high-calorie or nutrient-dense crops that

are compatible with the human digestive system " means. Perhaps you

could give some examples. How deep is " deep topsoil " ? What is a " full

complement " of minerals?

> (Yes, of course topsoil, minerals and soil life can be

> adversely or positively influenced by human actions,

> but let's assume responsible stewardship by the farmers

> in this case.)

That seems like a bad assumption. Please explain what " responsible

stewardship by the farmers " is.

> Because animals can convert plants which are totally

> unsuitable for humans into food humans can use. Take

> for instance goats, foraging across a high desert,

> eating shrubs, grasses and other things humans can't

> digest. The goats can get all their needs met by such

> forage, be healthy, and produce nutritious milk and

> meat, whereas the humans on that land without the

> goats would get far fewer calories and nutrition from

> the same area.

Animals in a pasture convert plants which are totally unsuitable for

humans into food humans can use. Does it follow that the pasture

cannot be used to produce food that humans can eat? Are you saying

that soil of low fertility can support healthy animals producing

nutritious milk and meat?

> Efficient as in optimal nutrient and calorie availability.

Please explain further what optimal nutrient and calorie availability

actually is. I am curious to know.

Chi

[Guest guest]

> --- In @y..., Aubin Parrish <aubinparrish@y...>

wrote:

>

> > Because animals can convert plants which are totally

> > unsuitable for humans into food humans can use. Take

> > for instance goats, foraging across a high desert,

> > eating shrubs, grasses and other things humans can't

> > digest. The goats can get all their needs met by such

> > forage, be healthy, and produce nutritious milk and

> > meat, whereas the humans on that land without the

> > goats would get far fewer calories and nutrition from

> > the same area.

>

> Animals in a pasture convert plants which are totally unsuitable

for

> humans into food humans can use. Does it follow that the pasture

> cannot be used to produce food that humans can eat? Are you saying

> that soil of low fertility can support healthy animals producing

> nutritious milk and meat?

If one were to try to make this argument, I think that you would run

it towards places that are unsuitable for direct cultivation. Like

deserts, which may have a high enough level of vegetation, but not

support more intensive agriculture because of water requirements.

(note that the rediscovery of Roman agricultural techniques in the

eastern Meditterrainean is changing some of these assumptions) Or

like mountains, where it might be tricky to find enough flat space to

put a field, but this doesn't stop goats or sheep from extracting

nutrients.

Soren

[Guest guest]

Chi, what is it exactly that you're getting at here?

You seem to be asking me leading questions in

anticipation of me saying something you can shoot

down. If that's not the case, I apologize, but your

questions like " how deep is deep topsoil " and " explain

what responsible stewardship is " are not really

relevant to the general premise I'm trying to explain,

which is that some land is more suited for raising

different kinds of food than others, based on current

agricultural knowledge.

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

> So why would that type of land be less suitable for

> producing animal

> food?

Not necessarily less suitable, but it may be more

ecological (doing less damage to the land), and/or

make better use of a given portion of land in terms of

the amount of human food that can be grown there, to

plant crops; or conversely to grow animals on a

different portion of land.

> Please explain what " high-calorie or

> nutrient-dense crops that

> are compatible with the human digestive system "

> means. Perhaps you

> could give some examples.

If you don't know what I meant by that, perhaps you

haven't done as much research on this particular

subject as I was assuming. Examples: grains, tubers,

highly-nutrious vegetables, oily seeds. Not things

that have few calories for their volume or require

almost as much energy to digest as they impart to the

person eating them, like lettuce, celery, cucumbers,

or the like (not that foods of that type aren't good

and useful and even necessary for a balanced diet,

with valuable components of their own, but humans

require more concentrated calories as the bulk of the

diet).

> How deep is " deep

> topsoil " ?

Feet, not inches.

> What is a " full

> complement " of minerals?

You want I should list the whole shebang? Probably no

soil has everything, but many areas are naturally

lacking in certain important elements, i.e. calcium,

iron, copper, to an extent that a great deal of effort

and outside resources would be needed to grow the

relatively shallow-rooted plants that humans depend

on, as in bringing in minerals mined from outside the

region, which is not necessarily economically nor

ecologically sound practice. Whereas native plants,

such as deep-rooted shrubs, trees, forbs, even grasses

and legumes, can tap into the wider range of minerals

that may be available deeper underground, and support

growth that can feed animals where shallow-rooted

crops could not thrive.

> That seems like a bad assumption. Please explain

> what " responsible

> stewardship by the farmers " is.

Come on, Chi. It means giving back as much as

possible what you take out of the soil, composting the

waste from your farm (animal and plant), monitoring

the soil life, texture, tilth. I know giant

agribusiness does not use such practices, but I'm

talking about what would be optimal use of land for

human food, IMO, which bears little resemblance to a

great deal of the standard agricultural practices used

currently.

> Animals in a pasture convert plants which are

> totally unsuitable for

> humans into food humans can use. Does it follow that

> the pasture

> cannot be used to produce food that humans can eat?

No, it does not necessarily follow, but pasture can be

grown in areas that could not support many human

calorie crops.

> Are you saying

> that soil of low fertility can support healthy

> animals producing

> nutritious milk and meat?

Yes, soil with *lower* fertility than would be

required for crops of human food. Not entirely

deficient soil, but take my high desert example. Such

an area would not have the same kind of densely

fertile soil as a deep top soil prairie, nor would it

have the same water resources, but it can support a

healthy population of animals that can eat the plants

that *want* to grow there, which humans could not

digest, and turn it into human food.

> Please explain further what optimal nutrient and

> calorie availability

> actually is. I am curious to know.

Optimal as in food that contains a high concentration

of nutrients and calories that would be available to

the human digestive system, based on the biology of

our systems.

I suspect everyone else on this list is getting bored

with this discussion, and I don't really have the time

for long posts like this except when my two-year-old

is napping (and I really should be doing other things

right now), so perhaps we should leave it.

Aubin

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

> Chi, what is it exactly that you're getting at here?

Aubin, you make general statements. I just want you to explain them.

> Not necessarily less suitable

Hmm, I thought you said less suitable.

> If you don't know what I meant by that, perhaps you

> haven't done as much research on this particular

> subject as I was assuming. Examples: grains, tubers,

> highly-nutrious vegetables, oily seeds. Not things

> that have few calories for their volume or require

> almost as much energy to digest as they impart to the

> person eating them, like lettuce, celery, cucumbers,

> or the like (not that foods of that type aren't good

> and useful and even necessary for a balanced diet,

> with valuable components of their own, but humans

> require more concentrated calories as the bulk of the

> diet).

Perhaps you might want to do some research on the relationship

between nutrition and soil fertility. 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.

> > How deep is " deep

> > topsoil " ?

>

> Feet, not inches.

How many feet?

> > What is a " full

> > complement " of minerals?

>

> You want I should list the whole shebang?

Yes, please include your recommendations on base saturation

percentage for cations.

> Probably no soil has everything, but many areas are

> naturally lacking in certain important elements,

> i.e. calcium, iron, copper, to an extent that a great

> deal of effort and outside resources would be needed

> to grow the relatively shallow-rooted plants that

> humans depend on, as in bringing in minerals mined

> from outside the region, which is not necessarily

> economically nor ecologically sound practice.

Root depth is not determined by the plant species, it's determined by

soil fertility. Your statement that minerally deficient soils should

not have their deficiencies addressed by " bringing in minerals minded

from outside the region, which is not necessarily economically nor

ecologically sound practice " is mind boggling. Minerally deficient

soils create minerally deficient plants. Minerally deficient plants

are not good food for animals or humans.

> Whereas native plants, such as deep-rooted shrubs, trees, forbs,

> even grasses and legumes, can tap into the wider range

> of minerals that may be available deeper underground,

> and support growth that can feed animals

> where shallow-rooted crops could not thrive.

Your statement shows a lack of understanding of soil fertility and

nutrition. Root depth is determined by soil fertility. Trees don't

feed animals very well. Trees have very little protein for their size

and, according to the soil scientist, Albrecht, they are

nature's last stand against the erosion of soil fertility. Have you

ever heard of Albrecht? Have you read " Nutrition and Physical

Degeneration " ?

> Come on, Chi. It means giving back as much as

> possible what you take out of the soil, composting the

> waste from your farm (animal and plant), monitoring

> the soil life, texture, tilth.

Come on, Aubin. If you take any crop away off a farm, you are mining

the soil fertility. Composting the waste from the farm can't replace

what has been taken off the farm. You can monitor your soil life,

texture and tilth as it is lost.

> No, it does not necessarily follow, but pasture can be

> grown in areas that could not support many human

> calorie crops.

You can produce all the calories you need for human consumption in

low soil fertility. Albrecht calls calorie food " go " food. The

problem in low soil fertility is in producing the proteins, the food

Albrecht calls " grow " food. So land that doesn't support nourishing

human food will not grow nourishing animal food either.

> Yes, soil with *lower* fertility than would be

> required for crops of human food. Not entirely

> deficient soil, but take my high desert example. Such

> an area would not have the same kind of densely

> fertile soil as a deep top soil prairie, nor would it

> have the same water resources, but it can support a

> healthy population of animals that can eat the plants

> that *want* to grow there, which humans could not

> digest, and turn it into human food.

Boggle.

> Optimal as in food that contains a high concentration

> of nutrients and calories that would be available to

> the human digestive system, based on the biology of

> our systems.

Could you be more vague?

> I suspect everyone else on this list is getting bored

> with this discussion, and I don't really have the time

> for long posts like this except when my two-year-old

> is napping (and I really should be doing other things

> right now), so perhaps we should leave it.

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.

Chi

[Guest guest]

> The stated purpose of this list does not include discussing the

> minutae of soil fertlility theories.

We address the question " How can we achieve radiant health with the

regenerating food practices of isolated, non-industrial populations? -

the healthiest people ever studied. "

To create food comparable to what these people ate you cannot ignore

the influence of soil fertility. Probably little or no food, organic

or otherwise, is produced today in the USA that is comparable in

nutritional value to the food that those people ate. Raw milk is not

enough. Grass fed is not enough. You need raw milk at comparable

production amounts to dairy cattle in the 1930's, grass fed and high

soil fertility to produce comparable nutritional values to those

Weston Price found in the diets of the healthy people he studied. His

clinical work back in the USA used high vitamin butter oil from grass

fed cattle on high soil fertility at 2 particular times of year in

order to produce comparable nutritional values to what the people he

studied ate. To ignore the role of soil fertility in nutrition is to

miss the point that Weston Price so well understood and tried to pass

on to others in his book. Price added the supplement in 1945 to the

original book published in 1939 to emphasize some issues. That's

why " Food is Fabricated Soil Fertility " by Albrecht is one

chapter in the supplement.

> 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?

Obviously not. A potato won't have the same nutritional profile as

broccoli, however, when grown in low soil fertility both will have

low nutritional values for their respective species and when grown in

high soil fertility both will have high nutritional values for their

species. Again, as I said before when you didn't understand it, the

nutritional value of a crop (high or low nutritional value or

anywhere in between) is determined by the soil fertility it grows in,

not by its species.

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

> same fertile soil will have the same root depth?

Obviously not. The root depth of each separate species varies

according to the soil fertility it grows in, not according to what

species it is.

> 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.

Don't assume they are well nourished. I am sure they would indicate

their preference for an increase in soil fertility over an increase

in the number of trees in their range.

> Protein concentration is not the most important aspect

> of food value for every species of animal.

Name one species that protein quality in not the most important

aspect of food value for that species.

> 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?

Obviously not.

> > 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 am certainly prepared to discuss my understanding of Albrecht's

work, Price's work, Voisin's work and Pottenger's work with anyone. I

would only require that they read the work they wish to discuss.

> By the way, what is your level of experience with growing food?

Certainly many more people have far more experience in growing food

than I do. I am not concerned with growing food the way it is grown

today, for bulk yields only. I am concerned with learning how to

create soil fertility conditions that will permit farmers who want to

to produce butter at a comparable nutritional level to the brilliant

yellow butter that Price used in his clinical experimients in which,

time after time, dental caries remineralized over. With no background

in agriculture or biology I had to go out on my own to figure out how

to do it. Although I think I am on the right track, more experiments

need to be done to confirm that I am on the right track. Experiments

are being done and the results will be produced, one way or the other.

What has been most interesting to me in agriculture, coming into it

from the outside, it the almost total lack of interest in farmers,

conventional and organic, in improving or maximizing nutritional

values of the crops they produce. Fortunately there are a few farmers

who are an exception to this general observation.

Chi