RE: Re: nutrition and soil

[Guest guest]

This is an interesting thread with lots of good info but I seem to be

missing the point. Where is the argument? What is this all about? I want

the highest quality food possible and most assuredly that means it must

begin with the best soil possible. Is that a point of dispute? On the

other hand I don't want soybeans no matter what the quality. Is that a

point of dispute? That strikes me as the optimal position. Now if I do

eat soybeans clearly I would want the highest quality. But it seems to me

that is a compromise, given the information disseminated by this group.

just my two cents...

On Fri, 15 Feb 2002 03:29:57 -0000 " soilfertility "

<ynos@...> writes:

> Without more data, I couldn't say definitively, but I would be

> inclined to suspect a combination of the factors ...

Hi :

Thanks for your explanation. Here is an example of the relationship

of soil fertility to animal health from Chapter 29 of Volume I

of " The Albrecht Papers " :

" Recent experiments with sheep demonstrate the fact that putting the

lime on the soil makes lespedeza hay, for example, a much more

efficient growth producer. Liming increased the yield of the

lexpedeza crop by about 25%. Each pound of limed hay, however, was

about 50% more efficient in terms of lamb growth resulting from

consuming it. With the animals eating all the hay they could, those

eating the hay given proper soil treatment made 50% more gain.

Because of better crop yield, and greater growth-producing

efficiency of the hay the limed acre was then about 75% more

efficient in terms of increase in sheep weight.

That the lime was effective, not wholly because of the nutrient

element calcium, and the phosphate not wholly because of the element

phosphorus, delivered by these soil treatments is shown by these hays

in digestion trials with rabbits. Contrary to expectation, the hay

giving the poorer growth rate was the more completely digested.

Therefore the animal machine was handling the vegetable matter to the

best of its ability.

Unfortunately, however, the unlimed hay was deficient in something to

help the animal build the calcium and phosphorus into its body. These

two bone building essentials in the animals on the poorer hay were

being eliminated by way of the urine just twice as fast as from the

animals on the more efficient hay. These minerals were digested, but

apparently the plants had not worked them into proper combination, or

provided the manufactured supplement for their effective service

within the body.

6. store minerals not enough

The mere delivery of calcium and phosphorus to the digestive tract,

and a high degree of digestibility of them are apparently not enough.

These essential minerals must enter into nutritional service for the

plant first if they are to be of nutritional service to the animal.

If these are the facts, then drugstore minerals shovelled into the

feedbox are not the equal in value to those put on the land as soil

treatment and as help in the better output of the many complexes of

the plant family. "

What would your conclusions to these experiments be, with particular

attention to the fact that the hay giving the poorer growth rate was

the better digested?

Chi

[Guest guest]

>On the

>other hand I don't want soybeans no matter what the quality. Is that a

>point of dispute?

Apparently it depends on whom you ask, so I guess it is. I'm not going to

touch even the very best and nutrient-dense soybeans, except for the

occasional bit of traditionally-fermented soy sauce with my sushi, and I

doubt I should even have that. The qualities imparted by excellent soil

don't militate against avoiding toxic foods like soy. We need as much of

the right foods of the highest quality as we can get, and as little of

everything else as we can manage too.

-

[Guest guest]

Hi Chi:

> What would your conclusions to these experiments be, with particular

> attention to the fact that the hay giving the poorer growth rate was

> the better digested?

The fact that the poorer hay was better digested is a bit mysterious to me.

I don't immediately see a plausible mechanism to explain that; there may

indeed be one...I'm no expert on the digestive processes of anything, much

less sheep. As for the effect of liming the soil on feed efficiency (as

measured by growth per pound of feed), I'm not surprised that the lime

improved it. I am a bit surprised at the degree of improvement that was

seen. This strikes me as being the area where we're in total

agreement...although I'm quite certain that I don't know nearly as much

about soil fertility and it's benefits as you and Rex do.

What would surprise me however, is if a well designed study were to show

that a marginal food source (ie soy for cattle) grown on quality soil

produced better health and gain than a more appropriate food source (grass

and legume forage) grown on marginal land.

A human diet of potatoes and soy grown on excellent land isn't going to be

enough for good health. By the same token a complete and balanced diet

grown on poor land isn't going to be enough. We need a combination of the

right foods and the right soils.

Minneapolis

[Guest guest]

>The fact that the poorer hay was better digested is a bit mysterious to me.

>I don't immediately see a plausible mechanism to explain that; there may

>indeed be one...

Just blind speculation here -- perhaps because the poorer hay didn't have

the wherewithal to create the full range of starches and fibers to be found

in the best hays.

-

[Guest guest]

That's plausible, I guess. It would be interesting to know if they analyzed

what the indigestible portion of each one was. That might shed some light

on the cause.

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

From: Idol [mailto:Idol@...]

Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 3:18 PM

Subject: RE: Re: nutrition and soil

>The fact that the poorer hay was better digested is a bit mysterious to me.

>I don't immediately see a plausible mechanism to explain that; there may

>indeed be one...

Just blind speculation here -- perhaps because the poorer hay didn't have

the wherewithal to create the full range of starches and fibers to be found

in the best hays.

-

[Guest guest]

Dear ,

Se the article " Splendor from the Grass' on the website for an explanation of

why the " poorer " hay works better. Sally