Re: Re: Soil Fertility and Food Quality (Was: chicken feed and soy information)

[Guest guest]

Rex,

I'm having trouble understanding your need to use such a condescending tone. I

would think lots of people on this list would be interested in the fact that

" high quality cabbage effortlessly ferments while the typical cabbage they buy

in stores is destined to mostly rot. "

In spite of the tone, I went to the URL you provided (because, contrary to your

implied assumption, I am deeply interested in this topic) and read the whole

thing, hoping for some enlightenment as to what you and Chi are wanting us to DO

and why it is you seem to feel you are voices " crying in the wilderness. " The

only actions I could pull out of the piece are:

1. move to an area with naturally high soil fertility and grow/buy food locally.

2. buy some expensive equipment and get a degree that would confer the

understanding to use it for testing produce before buying/eating it.

3. buy from a bio-dynamic farmer

Number three is of course the only practical action for the average person. But

I fail to understand why you perceive this as a radical action none of us could

understand. Sally has strong words of support for bio-dynamic farming in her

book and I've read only positive references to it on this list. What am I

missing?

----- Original Message -----

From: R. Harrill

Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 6:01 AM

Subject: Re: Re: chicken feed and soy information

2/13/2002 9:34:48 PM, " soilfertility " <ynos@...> struggled

once again to get folks to understand that there is such a major

variation in food quality and, therefore, mineral content:

Great comments, Chi. Sadly, I suspect the people on this list are no

more prepared to understand the huge difference in first class

soybeans and the junk, i.e., garbage soybeans that are sold to them.

Most think a bean is a bean is a bean, and with good reason: they

grew up being fed such stupidity from " organic " magazines and

nutritional books. Perhaps you can get your message across if

you first get your group to understand there is an overwhelming

difference in the *quality* of soybeans that look the same to the

untrained eye. A starting point might be to help them fathom that

the ordinary $6-9 a bushel beans they seem to think are OK are

sometimes passed over by Japanese buyers who are willing to pay

$20 a bushel for higher quality beans. And this from adjacent farms

in the good ole USA. Another item you could use would be the report

that Steve Diver put together that tries to help people understand the

Firman Bear data that " organic " people try to use to prove " organic " works

was in reality a database that proved just how dramatic the mineral

content of food can vary---depending on the quality of the soil used

to grow them.

http://www.interlog.com/~ggh/pick5.htm

I think you could have a tough job on your hands if you're dealing with

people who may want to make, say, sauerkraut and they don't know

that high quality cabbage effortlessly ferments while the typical

cabbage they buy in stores is destined to mostly rot.

But keep up the good work.

Regards,

Rex Harrill

>Whether soybeans have detrimental or beneficial effects on the

>quality of chicken eggs when used as chicken feed is not determined

>by the feed being soybeans.

>From page 63 of Volume IV of " The Albrecht Papers " :

> " Vegetation can be classified, then, into two groups, the first being

>woody, or the carbonaceous, group when the soil contributes little

>fertility and compels the plant to operate largely on water and

>weather. The second is the proteinaceous and mineral rich group when

>the supply of soil fertility is large. Forest trees grow on soils of

>lower soil fertility, while legumes, such as alfalfa, demand higher

>soil fertility. The first of these two groups reflects the fuel

>value, and the second the nutritional service in body building, as we

>all know of alfalfa's service for promotion of grwoth in young

>livestock.

>Not only in the different plants are these differences found, but

>even within a single kind of plant there is a similar variation

>according to soil fertility. Soybeans, for example, become more woody

>in character if grown on a limited supply of soil fertility. When

>more generously nourished, they become rich in minerals as legumes

>are expected to be. The soil fertility supply determines the plant

>composition, irrespective of the plant's pedigree or its parents as

>performers on some other soil. "

>

>More on the variable nutritional content of the soybean from page 147:

> " Soybeans have demonstrated experimentally that they may be growing

>to good height and yet may contain less protein and less phosphorus

>in the crop than was in the planted seed. They have also been shown

>to behave in true legume fashion whne on soils with ample lime and

>phosphorus, but behaved like woody vegetation when these two were not

>so amply provided. Here is the explanation of why one might believe

>them an 'acid-tolerant' crop, when in reality they shifted from a

>legume crop over into a timber crop. "

>

>When soil fertility declines, most farmers seek a substitute crop

>instead of renewing the soil fertility. Since the soybean grows in a

>wider range of soil fertility than other legumes, it makes a good

>legume crop to switch to when soil fertility drops. Although the

>nutritional value drops, yield is maintained. The situation is made

>worse by the introduction of hybrid crops. The hybrid is designed to

>maintain yields with further drops in soil fertility. Declining

>nutritional values are, of course, no interest to anyone (except to

>the people who want to sell you supplements). Hybrids can be

>organically grown and yet no one complains.

>

>

>> Her chickens are free range, but she wants/needs to supplement with

>grains. Please let me know some good brands that I can recommend to

>her.

>

>As it was for the soybean, the nutritional value of the grain

>supplement will have been determined primarily by the soil fertility

>it was grown in, not by the type of grain or the brand that it is.

>Considering the above, you might suggest avoiding a feed that

>contains any hybrids. The only way to ensure the soil fertility is

>good is to know the soil fertility where the feed is grown. To

>improve the nutritional value of the eggs perhaps the best thing to

>do is to increase the soil fertility where the chickens are running

>free.

>Chi

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

2/14/2002 11:28:39 AM, " Dennis " <nancydancy@...>

wrote:

>Rex,

>I'm having trouble understanding your need to use such a

condescending tone.

Easy does it, ---the message to Chi was intended to be

private and I failed to check the address. Sorry. He tries so hard

to get people on this list to understand that " it's not what's in your

food that can hurt you (toxins, sprays, etc.) so much as it's what is *not*

in your food (lack of quality). " I wanted to give him some support

because so many people just don't understand the need for quality.

>I would think lots of people on this list would be interested in

>the fact that " high quality cabbage effortlessly ferments while

>the typical cabbage they buy in stores is destined to mostly rot. "

Low brix cabbage that is heavily fertilized with excess nitrogen tends to

decompose rather than ferment. Even when you can force a ferment of

sorts, the resultant mess will sour the average stomach. High grade

cabbage makes delicious kraut. This is not just a problem to people

trying to make sense of the lousy food quality they must contend with.

Farmers who don't understand how to grow high quality feeds find that

they cannot make decent silage.

>In spite of the tone,

No tone---I was giving a few pointers to a man who truly understands

food quality. I tremendously admire Chi's willingness to " go to source "

(Price, Pottenger, Albrecht, and such other greats) to make his points. I

guess I get flustered when so many seem to let the source data fly over

their heads.

>I went to the URL you provided (because, contrary to your

>implied assumption, I am deeply interested in this topic) and

>read the whole thing, hoping for some enlightenment as to

>what you and Chi are wanting us to DO and why it is you

>seem to feel you are voices " crying in the wilderness. "

My initial note, in full, is below. Can you show me this " crying " quote?

>The only actions I could pull out of the piece are:

>1. move to an area with naturally high soil fertility and grow/buy

>food locally.

I like that " grow " bit. Hopefully, you've started.

>2. buy some expensive equipment and get a degree that would

>confer the understanding to use it for testing produce

>before buying/eating it.

You could get a cheap refractometer and use that to help you zero in

on better quality fruits and vegetables. You could also buy your milk

and meat from a farmer that feeds his animals better.

>3. buy from a bio-dynamic farmer

Interesting... Are you saying that bio-dynamic farmers *always* grow

good produce. I know of several that grow good food. I also know of

several that grow junk. Labels don't cut it---your innards need quality,

not labels.

>

>Number three is of course the only practical action for the

>average person. But I fail to understand why you perceive this

>as a radical action none of us could understand. Sally has

>strong words of support for bio-dynamic farming in her book

>and I've read only positive references to it on this list. What

>am I missing?

As I said---BD can be good, so-so, or bad. They have ways of testing

their output. If you're going that route, you may want to get them to

demonstrate to you the inherent health of their animals or even show

you their testing methods.

>

>

I normally trim messages, but you have expressed a dislike for what I

had to say so none of your words were cut. BTW, I don't think the

people on this list are " average. " I think of " average " as those people

who don't see the harm of eating in Mcs. The people here seem

to be struggling to get away from " average. "

I hope I made myself clear and there are no hard feelings. Several

other reply posts took me to task, mainly because they seemed to think

I am a soybean fan. Actually, I'm not so sure we should eat any grains.

I just feel that if one does eat grains, soybeans included, they should

struggle to get higher quality.

Regards,

Rex Harrill

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: R. Harrill

>

> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 6:01 AM

> Subject: Re: Re: chicken feed and soy information

>

>

> 2/13/2002 9:34:48 PM, " soilfertility " <ynos@...>

struggled

> once again to get folks to understand that there is such a major

> variation in food quality and, therefore, mineral content:

>

> Great comments, Chi. Sadly, I suspect the people on this list are no

> more prepared to understand the huge difference in first class

> soybeans and the junk, i.e., garbage soybeans that are sold to them.

> Most think a bean is a bean is a bean, and with good reason: they

> grew up being fed such stupidity from " organic " magazines and

> nutritional books. Perhaps you can get your message across if

> you first get your group to understand there is an overwhelming

> difference in the *quality* of soybeans that look the same to the

> untrained eye. A starting point might be to help them fathom that

> the ordinary $6-9 a bushel beans they seem to think are OK are

> sometimes passed over by Japanese buyers who are willing to pay

> $20 a bushel for higher quality beans. And this from adjacent farms

> in the good ole USA. Another item you could use would be the report

> that Steve Diver put together that tries to help people understand the

> Firman Bear data that " organic " people try to use to prove " organic "

works

> was in reality a database that proved just how dramatic the mineral

> content of food can vary---depending on the quality of the soil used

> to grow them.

>

> http://www.interlog.com/~ggh/pick5.htm

>

> I think you could have a tough job on your hands if you're dealing with

> people who may want to make, say, sauerkraut and they don't know

> that high quality cabbage effortlessly ferments while the typical

> cabbage they buy in stores is destined to mostly rot.

>

> But keep up the good work.

>

> Regards,

> Rex Harrill

>

>

> >Whether soybeans have detrimental or beneficial effects on the

> >quality of chicken eggs when used as chicken feed is not

determined

> >by the feed being soybeans.

> >From page 63 of Volume IV of " The Albrecht Papers " :

> > " Vegetation can be classified, then, into two groups, the first being

> >woody, or the carbonaceous, group when the soil contributes little

> >fertility and compels the plant to operate largely on water and

> >weather. The second is the proteinaceous and mineral rich group

when

> >the supply of soil fertility is large. Forest trees grow on soils of

> >lower soil fertility, while legumes, such as alfalfa, demand higher

> >soil fertility. The first of these two groups reflects the fuel

> >value, and the second the nutritional service in body building, as we

> >all know of alfalfa's service for promotion of grwoth in young

> >livestock.

> >Not only in the different plants are these differences found, but

> >even within a single kind of plant there is a similar variation

> >according to soil fertility. Soybeans, for example, become more

woody

> >in character if grown on a limited supply of soil fertility. When

> >more generously nourished, they become rich in minerals as

legumes

> >are expected to be. The soil fertility supply determines the plant

> >composition, irrespective of the plant's pedigree or its parents as

> >performers on some other soil. "

> >

> >More on the variable nutritional content of the soybean from page

147:

> > " Soybeans have demonstrated experimentally that they may be

growing

> >to good height and yet may contain less protein and less

phosphorus

> >in the crop than was in the planted seed. They have also been

shown

> >to behave in true legume fashion whne on soils with ample lime and

> >phosphorus, but behaved like woody vegetation when these two

were not

> >so amply provided. Here is the explanation of why one might believe

> >them an 'acid-tolerant' crop, when in reality they shifted from a

> >legume crop over into a timber crop. "

> >

> >When soil fertility declines, most farmers seek a substitute crop

> >instead of renewing the soil fertility. Since the soybean grows in a

> >wider range of soil fertility than other legumes, it makes a good

> >legume crop to switch to when soil fertility drops. Although the

> >nutritional value drops, yield is maintained. The situation is made

> >worse by the introduction of hybrid crops. The hybrid is designed to

> >maintain yields with further drops in soil fertility. Declining

> >nutritional values are, of course, no interest to anyone (except to

> >the people who want to sell you supplements). Hybrids can be

> >organically grown and yet no one complains.

> >

> >

> >> Her chickens are free range, but she wants/needs to supplement

with

> >grains. Please let me know some good brands that I can

recommend to

> >her.

> >

> >As it was for the soybean, the nutritional value of the grain

> >supplement will have been determined primarily by the soil fertility

> >it was grown in, not by the type of grain or the brand that it is.

> >Considering the above, you might suggest avoiding a feed that

> >contains any hybrids. The only way to ensure the soil fertility is

> >good is to know the soil fertility where the feed is grown. To

> >improve the nutritional value of the eggs perhaps the best thing to

> >do is to increase the soil fertility where the chickens are running

> >free.

> >Chi

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Rex,

Thank-you for your in-depth reply. I am relieved to learn that you didn't

intend the message to go to the whole list. That makes a big difference. Just

a few responses to some of your points below:

>I went to the URL you provided (because, contrary to your

>implied assumption, I am deeply interested in this topic) and

>read the whole thing, hoping for some enlightenment as to

>what you and Chi are wanting us to DO and why it is you

>seem to feel you are voices " crying in the wilderness. "

>My initial note, in full, is below. Can you show me this " crying " quote?

My use of the phrase " crying in the wilderness " was not a quote of your post but

an attempt to convey the way your post came across to me. It felt like you were

saying that you and Chi keep trying to tell all of us dolts the important facts

but we just won't get it. Of course, all of that is moot now that I understand

you were not addressing all of us on the list. I mention it only because I get

frustrated frequently when Chi gets into a debate with another list member

because I also think the issue of soil fertility is key and often overlooked but

his approach feels counter-productive to me. I keep wanting him to participate

in a more respectful way so that these important ideas are more likely to be

heard. Instead, he seems to jump on some semantic point that turns people off

to the important idea.

>The only actions I could pull out of the piece are:

>1. move to an area with naturally high soil fertility and grow/buy

>food locally.

I like that " grow " bit. Hopefully, you've started.

I have indeed and the test results for my soil show that I have a big job ahead.

My direct involvement in this project is one of the reasons that I find this

topic both interesting and important.

>3. buy from a bio-dynamic farmer

Interesting... Are you saying that bio-dynamic farmers *always* grow

good produce. I know of several that grow good food. I also know of

several that grow junk. Labels don't cut it---your innards need quality,

not labels.

No, I don't think bio-dynamic guarantees anything. I just pulled this suggested

action out of the article you cited. I agree that labels can mislead.

I normally trim messages, but you have expressed a dislike for what I

had to say so none of your words were cut.

I hope I made myself clear and there are no hard feelings.

Yes, I think your post is quite clear and I have no hard feelings. My

expression of dislike was really aimed at the manner of delivery more than the

content. I assume, since you said " sorry, " that you see that your original post

to Chi would not feel good to the readers you were talking about.

Several

other reply posts took me to task, mainly because they seemed to think

I am a soybean fan. Actually, I'm not so sure we should eat any grains.

I just feel that if one does eat grains, soybeans included, they should

struggle to get higher quality.

I am curious about your inclusion of soybeans in the category of grains. But as

a recovering vegetarian with a rather severe carbohydrate sensitivity, I am

currently unable to eat grains and so have a lot of interest in the arguements

against eating grains. What are yours?

Regards,

[Guest guest]

>

> You could get a cheap refractometer and use that to help you zero in

> on better quality fruits and vegetables. You could also buy your milk

> and meat from a farmer that feeds his animals better.

Can you tell more about refractometers? I've seen some about them in

AcresUSA? What do you mean by " cheap " ?

Peace,

Kris , gardening in northwest Ohio

[Guest guest]

2/17/2002 11:01:46 PM, " Kris. " <Kris.@...> wrote:

>

>Can you tell more about refractometers? I've seen some about them in

>AcresUSA? What do you mean by " cheap " ?

Cheap means a hundred bucks or so. Try

http://www.crossroads.ws

It should tell you a bit.

Regards,

Rex Harrill

[Guest guest]

Great site! I've seen refractometers advertized in AcresUSA, but never quite

understood what it was all about.

Peace,

Kris , gardening in northwest Ohio

----- Original Message -----

From: R. Harrill <brixman@...>

< >

Sent: Monday, February 18, 2002 7:58 AM

Subject: Re: Re: Soil Fertility and Food Quality (Was:

chicken feed and soy information)

> 2/17/2002 11:01:46 PM, " Kris. " <Kris.@...>

wrote:

> >

> >Can you tell more about refractometers? I've seen some about them in

> >AcresUSA? What do you mean by " cheap " ?

>

> Cheap means a hundred bucks or so. Try

> http://www.crossroads.ws

>

> It should tell you a bit.

>

> Regards,

> Rex Harrill

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I was wondering about hydroponics. We have tomatoes, lettuce and peppers grown

hydroponically during the winter here locally in greenhouses. What type of food

quality can we expect from veggies grown hydroponically? I suppose it depends on

the mix they use, but it seems to me no matter what they would use it would

still me missing something. It is my only way of getting mostly organic produce

locally during the winter months.

Grace,

a Augustine

I wish you enough sun to keep your attitude bright.

I wish you enough rain to appreciate the sun more.

I wish you enough happiness to keep your spirit alive.

I wish you enough pain so that the smallest joys in life appear much bigger.

I wish you enough gain to satisfy your wanting.

I wish you enough loss to appreciate all that you possess.

I wish you enough ''Hello's " to get you through the final goodbye.

--anonymous

----- Original Message -----

From: Kris.

Sent: Monday, February 18, 2002 11:45 PM

Subject: Re: Re: Soil Fertility and Food Quality (Was:

chicken feed and soy information)

Great site! I've seen refractometers advertized in AcresUSA, but never quite

understood what it was all about.

Peace,

Kris , gardening in northwest Ohio

----- Original Message -----

From: R. Harrill <brixman@...>

< >

Sent: Monday, February 18, 2002 7:58 AM

Subject: Re: Re: Soil Fertility and Food Quality (Was:

chicken feed and soy information)

> 2/17/2002 11:01:46 PM, " Kris. " <Kris.@...>

wrote:

> >

> >Can you tell more about refractometers? I've seen some about them in

> >AcresUSA? What do you mean by " cheap " ?

>

> Cheap means a hundred bucks or so. Try

> http://www.crossroads.ws

>

> It should tell you a bit.

>

> Regards,

> Rex Harrill

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

>I was wondering about hydroponics.

It's a terrible disaster. Instead of relying on a vibrant, self-sustaining

ecology to nourish and support plants, it sucks resources out and consumes

them, a complete one-way street. Worse, there's simply no way to provide

all the nutrients, organisms, etc., that a crop needs hydroponically. Soil

is very complex; hydroponic mediums are simple.

-