Re: chicken feed and soy information

[Guest guest]

As we have chickens as well and I'd love some ammo to toss at the soy folks,

please send me the info as well or perhaps post it here.

Thanks,

Belinda

> Hi all. I need some information:

>

> 1. A local egg farmer asked me for information about any studies that

> address the detrimental effects of soy on chickens and on the quality of

> their eggs. If you have sites for such info., please send it to me.

>

> 2. She also wants recommendations for a " good " chicken feed. 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.

>

> Thanks

>

> Dana

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I don't have any chicken specific soy info off the top of my head

I'll see what I can dig up if anything. However in the meantime,

everything that applies to humans not eating soy or minimal amounts

should apply to chickens. Certainly their digestive systems are

different however the same things that make a soybean a generally

poor food source for us just makes it a poor food source. So

whatever you know about the crummyness (if that can be a word) of soy

as a food product you can use in the same way for a chicken.

I'll do some looking.

DMM

> As we have chickens as well and I'd love some ammo to toss at the

soy folks,

> please send me the info as well or perhaps post it here.

>

> Thanks,

>

> Belinda

> > Hi all. I need some information:

> >

> > 1. A local egg farmer asked me for information about any studies

that

> > address the detrimental effects of soy on chickens and on the

quality of

> > their eggs. If you have sites for such info., please send it to

me.

> >

> > 2. She also wants recommendations for a " good " chicken feed.

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.

> >

> > Thanks

> >

> > Dana

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

--- In @y..., " Dana Milmeister " <danamilmeister@y...>

wrote:

> 1. A local egg farmer asked me for information about any studies

that address the detrimental effects of soy on chickens and on the

quality of their eggs. If you have sites for such info., please send

it to me.

Hi Dana:

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]

I don't want to be part of national bash rex and chi day, however I

must agree with on this one. No matter how you grow a soybean,

a soybean is a soybean is a soybean. You will no doubt have better

soybeans grown in better soil however when its all said and done its

still a soybean and generally speaking it stinks as a food source,

much less a primary food source in animal feed. Blue Bonnet might be

better than Parkay but you know what? I'm not going to touch either

one. Reason: they stink as food sources regardless if one may be

better than the other. Always remember the first criteria for eating

is not how well it is grown or where its from. The first criteria

is; is it a good food source. Well in our culture the first criteria

I suppose is; is it food at all?:-))) Then we get to is it a good

food source. Soybeans would fall into the food category however I do

not find them to pass muster for our second consideration. At risk

of speaking for everyone I believe this is likely to be of no news to

most of you.

Sincerely,

Dr. Marasco,BS,DC

Cincinnati, Oh

> > Sadly, I suspect the people on this list are no

> > more prepared to understand the huge difference in first class

> > soybeans and the junk

>

> Rex and Chi,

>

> I think that, in your passion, you are inadvertently saying

something that

> you don't really mean...or at least saying it in a way that means

something

> different to me than it does to you. Perhaps the passion also

explains

> Rex's insulting tone, although it certainly doesn't excuse it. I

doubt that

> there are very many people on this list who don't agree with both

of you

> that the quality of an individual crop is very heavily determined

by the

> quality of the land. Your assertion however, that it is in fact

the *only*

> determinant, is going to lose most people...and for good reason.

Even

> though you say it, I don't really believe that even you believe

it.

>

> Poor soil quality does not create the phytic acid, trypsin

inhibitors,

> mineral phytates, estrogenic compounds, the particular essential

fatty acid

> balance or the particular amino acid balance that soybeans

naturally have.

> Those issues are there no matter what. It is those things (to

varying

> degrees depending on how the soy is treated) that may make it

detrimental as

> a feed ingredient...independently of soil fertility. Soil

fertility is

> absolutely yet another factor that needs to be considered, but

nightshade

> berries are no more healthful when grown on the most excellent

biodynamic

> soil on earth than they are when grown in a child's sandbox.

Similarly,

> there *are* problems with soy that are independent of soil

fertility.

>

> Sqare pegs are inappropriate for round holes whether they are made

of gold,

> clay, or biodynamic soil.

>

>

> Minneapolis

[Guest guest]

>

> Even though you say it, I don't really believe

> that even you believe it.

Hi :

How I feel about the importance of soil fertility is summed up by

this quote from chapter 43 of Andre Voisin's " Soil Grass and Cancer " :

" For all time the soil will remain the very basis of our life, in

every sense of the word and from all points of view. "

It was from a book called " Nutrition and Physical Degeneration " that

I first learned the importance of soil fertility in nutrition.

Clearly, Weston Price was aware of the dominant position of soil

fertility in determining nutritional quality.

Chi

[Guest guest]

> >

> > Even though you say it, I don't really believe

> > that even you believe it.

>

> Hi :

> How I feel about the importance of soil fertility is summed up by

> this quote from chapter 43 of Andre Voisin's " Soil Grass and

Cancer " :

> " For all time the soil will remain the very basis of our life, in

> every sense of the word and from all points of view. "

> It was from a book called " Nutrition and Physical Degeneration "

that

> I first learned the importance of soil fertility in nutrition.

> Clearly, Weston Price was aware of the dominant position of soil

> fertility in determining nutritional quality.

> Chi

We all agree with that; you're arguing against a strawmen. As

has pointed out, the reason not to eat soy is because of the

phytates, phyto-estregens and trypsin inhibitors.

[Guest guest]

--- In @y..., " drmichaelmarasco " <mmarasco@c...>

wrote:

> I don't want to be part of national bash rex and chi day,

Hi :

I wasn't aware that such a day was even being planned.

> No matter how you grow a soybean, a soybean is a soybean

> is a soybean.

I won't argue with that statement. Do you agree with the statement

that food is fabricated soil fertility?

> Always remember the first criteria for eating is not how well

> it is grown or where its from. The first criteria is; is it a

> good food source. Well in our culture the first criteria

> I suppose is; is it food at all?:-))) Then we get to is it a good

> food source.

If you offer an animal a choice of different foods that it can eat,

will it make its choice based on which is the better food source or

will it make its choice based on the soil fertility in which the food

was grown?

Chi

[Guest guest]

> > I don't want to be part of national bash rex and chi day,

>

> Hi :

> I wasn't aware that such a day was even being planned.

>

> > No matter how you grow a soybean, a soybean is a soybean

> > is a soybean.

>

> I won't argue with that statement. Do you agree with the statement

> that food is fabricated soil fertility?

Is a poisonous mushroom fabricated soil fertility?

[Guest guest]

> Is a poisonous mushroom fabricated soil fertility?

Hi :

Is a poisonous mushroom a food?

Chi

[Guest guest]

>

> > Is a poisonous mushroom fabricated soil fertility?

>

> Hi :

> Is a poisonous mushroom a food?

> Chi

Is soy a food?

They both contain unhealthful substances.

[Guest guest]

I nor anyone here as far as I know takes any issue with the NEED for

optimal soil conditions. You have complete 100% agreement on that.

Where the dissonance here is that if you feed an animal large amounts

of the most optimally grown soybeans in the most optimal soil that

animal is not going to do well. Certainly an animal eating soybeans

from great soil will do better on soybeans from crummy vacant soil

however that's like saying I will be better off drinking a half cup

of gasoline as compared to drinking a gallon of gasoline, either way

its a bad idea.

The point here as I said earlier, that we are all in total agreement

on the NEED for optimal soil. There is no need to keep speaking as if

there is any disagreement on that issue because there is not. At

least in my case this is partly evidenced by my insistence on using

Standard Process if you are going to use any supplements at all, as

there are few places anywhere in North America with better soil.

DMM

> > I don't want to be part of national bash rex and chi day,

>

> Hi :

> I wasn't aware that such a day was even being planned.

>

> > No matter how you grow a soybean, a soybean is a soybean

> > is a soybean.

>

> I won't argue with that statement. Do you agree with the statement

> that food is fabricated soil fertility?

>

> > Always remember the first criteria for eating is not how well

> > it is grown or where its from. The first criteria is; is it a

> > good food source. Well in our culture the first criteria

> > I suppose is; is it food at all?:-))) Then we get to is it a

good

> > food source.

>

> If you offer an animal a choice of different foods that it can eat,

> will it make its choice based on which is the better food source or

> will it make its choice based on the soil fertility in which the

food

> was grown?

> Chi

[Guest guest]

Rex,

I would just contact them if that is what you'd like to do. I

have no reason at all to think they are lying about it, as I've said

before, " marketing geniuses " they are not. In addition to that I

know the 70+ year personal history of this company all the way back

to Dr. Royal Lee starting it and there just is no reason to think

otherwise. I cannot speak in the first person on this however I have

discussed this matter with dozens of professionals from doctors to

farmers who have been at the farm site none of which have

affiliations with the company and they all to man or woman vouch for

the sheer amazement they experience when examining the soil, seeing

the farm, observing processing proceedures. Each one finds it more

remarkable that in this day and age there is actually a reasonably

large company doing so much the right way. Is the soil up to your

standard? I have no idea, however its hard to argue with people who

have spent so much time effort and money to create 8-10 feet of top

soil. Even if it is not in agreement with your soil opinions, I

still maintain that in North America you will have a very difficult

time finding ANY land more well maintained.

Rex I must say that if I were SP I don't know that I would let you or

anyone else on my land. They have nothing to prove and only harm to

have from such a thing, and here's why. If you haven't noticed in

the science communities of every discipline there are few who agree

on anything, and I don't find this to be even a small overstatement.

So what would they have to gain by letting an " outside expert " come

in and examine their soil. Nothing. If you like their soil, it

doesn't benefit them in any way. It's not like Rex is going to

pronounce the SP soil superior and their business is going to expand

or they are going to do anything different. And if you because of

your own personal scientific flavor hate their soil, you will

proclaim it rotten, and quite honestly a few people may not use SP

anymore because of your or another researchers opinion, however it

really is not going to impact them in any way other than to create a

minimal amount of doubt regarding their soil. There really is no

upside for them so I don't know why they'd want you or anyone else

there. You or anyone else can arrange for a tour of the farm

anytime, you can go see it yourself.

Sincerely,

Dr. Marasco,BS,DC

Cincinnati, Oh

Ps- Rex I could use some boning up on my soil quality knowledge

anyway would you please recommend some good quality resources that

are not too technical? Thanks.

>

> >...evidenced by my insistence on using

> >Standard Process if you are going to use any supplements at all,

as

> >there are few places anywhere in North America with better soil.

>

> Can you (DMM) give me a pointer to where I can review something

> to back up the claim that SP has superior soil? I know what

> their advertising claims, but I've been unsuccessful in discovering

> any details about what they do to maintain fertility. I've also

> been advised that they will not allow independent researchers

> such as myself access to their fields so as to test their soil and

> the actual quality of what they grow.

>

> For anyone not following this fertility thread, think of a fertile

field that

> is being cropped. The first year tons and tons of produce are

> trucked away. This produce is laden with minerals and other

> goodies. The fertility of the field is diminished in direct

proportion

> to this trucking away of produce.

>

> When you do this for a few years, the soil becomes more

> and more poor. Finally, insects and diseases start appearing as

> the soil no longer supports healthy crops.

>

> Good farmers study enough to know what is in fertile soil and they

> replenish the soil so as to maintain its microbial life, i.e., they

work

> toward maximizing fertility. OTOH, " modern " agriculture generally

> pays minimal attention to fertility and uses

stimulating " fertilizers "

> to force lush growth. They then devise poisonous sprays to kill

> the insects, weeds, and diseases that always attack such

> weak vegetation. You get a single guess as to who buys this

> junk.

>

> As I said above, I've been unsuccessful at verifying SP actually

> maintains the fertility of their fields. Can anyone on this list

help

> me open a channel?

>

> Regards,

> Rex Harrill