Re: nutrition and soil

[Guest guest]

> Let me stress yet again, it's not that I disagree with you

> that soil fertility is extremely important. I'm just insistent

> that some foods are poor foods regardless of *how* or *where*

> they were grown. There's no doubt that crops of similar

> type from differing soils will differ in nutritional quality.

> But different types of crops grown in different soils differ more

> because of their type than because of the soil.

Hi :

From Chapter 20 of " Nutrition and Physical Degeneration " :

" If we relate the levels of life of human and domestic animals to the

problem of soil depletion, we find two important groups of data.

First, there are those which relate to specific land areas, some

small and some very large; and second, those which relate to

civilizations and groups, both large and small that have passed out

of existance or are rapidly deteriorating. A study of the skeletons

of the past and present often discloses a progressive breakdown. For

example, we may mention the important anthropological findings of

Professor Hooton of Harvard, who, in his examinations of various

pueblos of the Western Plains, especially at the Pecos Pueblo where

the progressive burials have been uncovered, has brought to light the

calendar of a civilization extending over a thousand years. These

findings show that there has been over the period of years a

progressive increase in skeletal deformities, including arthritis and

dental caries, together with a reduction in stature, suggesting a

direct relationship to progressive depletion of the soil. "

Do you think the cause of the progressive degeneration in the

skeletons studied by Professor Hooton was, as Price suggested,

progressive depletion of the soil or do you think that the evidence

suggests that it was more likely that this group of primitives must

have changed the food they ate and these changes were to poorer foods?

Chi

[Guest guest]

> Do you think the cause of the progressive degeneration in the

> skeletons studied by Professor Hooton was, as Price suggested,

> progressive depletion of the soil or do you think that the evidence

> suggests that it was more likely that this group of primitives must

> have changed the food they ate and these changes were to poorer

> foods?

> Chi

Hi Chi,

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

inclined to suspect a combination of the factors. In all likelihood

during the time mentioned, the civilization became more dependent on

their plant-based agriculture as the game populations declined. At

least, that is a commonly observed archaeological scenario since

about 13,000 BC. I would also not discount the likely increase in

illnesses they would have experienced from problems with handling

wastes and/or population increases. We also can't know very easily

whether there were progressive genetic anomalies introduced by mating

peculiarities such as incest or favoring odd traits as special.

Health is so multi-factorial that even if the population were here

with us now in some sort of time-lapse laboratory, we would doubtless

be very hard pressed to identify all of the factors that were

causative, compounding, or merely coincidental.

Minneapolis

[Guest guest]

> 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