Guest guest Posted July 5, 2004 Report Share Posted July 5, 2004 At 10:55 AM 7/5/04 -0400, you wrote: > -katja. > (whose licenseplate, for gods' sake, is HIBRIX!!) I thought it was " I Hugged My Scoby Today " . Wait, no, I guess that's too many letters for a license plate. What was I tinkin? MFJ If I have to be a grownup, can I at least be telekinetic too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 5, 2004 Report Share Posted July 5, 2004 At 01:44 PM 7/5/04 EDT, you wrote: > On the other hand, the guy in an adjascent town > from me who recently dropped his organic certification in annoyance at its > dilution who is big into pasturing, good soil, and is converting to >horse-power > is probably producing better quality food than most organic stuff. See, and that's another thing. I've heard a lot from farmers about the incredible regulation and miscellaneous stuff required to be certified organic. That's another issue. They have to spend a whole lot of money to satisfy the AGgies and everyone else ... money that would go a LONG way to improve their soil fertility and brix. Many that I've talked to don't worry any more about the certification ... they let that pass by the wayside and invite people to their farms to see their practices etc. and make their own decisions about whether it's " organic " enough for them. IMHO, that's the way it should be. It shouldn't be so difficult to make it that way. *sigh* ... guess I don't have my perfect world yet, huh? MFJ If I have to be a grownup, can I at least be telekinetic too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 6, 2004 Report Share Posted July 6, 2004 Chris- > > but that's all it says! i've never seen anyone claim that an organic > tomato > > > > has more vitamins than a conventional one. > >That's a fairly regular claim, that organic food per se is more nutritious >than conventional. And in general, organic food is more nutritious than conventional. It's just usually still not nearly nutritious enough. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 6, 2004 Report Share Posted July 6, 2004 > > -katja. > > (whose licenseplate, for gods' sake, is HIBRIX!!) > > I thought it was " I Hugged My Scoby Today " . > > Wait, no, I guess that's too many letters for a license plate. What was I > tinkin? Maybe that's the bumper sticker!!! Cheers, Tas'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 6, 2004 Report Share Posted July 6, 2004 > It's just usually still not nearly nutritious enough. > Making and drinking vegetable juices is a good way to concentrate nutritive values. If the glycemic peaks don't present a problem. Bruce Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 6, 2004 Report Share Posted July 6, 2004 At 06:11 PM 7/5/2004, you wrote: >See, and that's another thing. I've heard a lot from farmers about the >incredible regulation and miscellaneous stuff required to be certified >organic. That's another issue. They have to spend a whole lot of >money to satisfy the AGgies and everyone else ... money that would go a >LONG way to improve their soil fertility and brix. Many that I've talked >to don't worry any more about the certification ... they let that pass by >the wayside and invite people to their farms to see their practices etc. >and make their own decisions about whether it's " organic " enough for them. > >IMHO, that's the way it should be. It shouldn't be so difficult to make >it that way. *sigh* ... guess I don't have my perfect world yet, huh? i think this must vary by region too. i don't think that the certification is at all onerous - i have to keep paperwork, but it's minimal, and i'd keep it anyway: breeding records, health records, records of what i put on the soil, just general farm journal stuff. they don't care if it's written on a napkin. i just have a crate with different file folders, and whenever something happens, i scrawl out a note and pop it in the appropriate folder, or we write it in the journal and we're done. we spend one day with the inspector for the actual certification (or re-cert), which is really fun actually and we learned a TON of stuff, and then there are occasional unannounced visits that are just like 30 minutes or whatever. it's totally easy. i guess if i were a conventional farmer it'd be harder to make the transition - but again, the work is the work, not the certification. the work is actually the *farming*. maybe if we had cantankerous inspectors or something, i dunno. or maybe i'm just naturally organized and someone else doesn't want to keep records at all (though i think that's kinda foolhardy). i can't imagine that the process is all that different anywhere else, but ya know. i can only speak for here. -katja Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 6, 2004 Report Share Posted July 6, 2004 > RE: Holy Organic If all we had available >>were low brix food (with or without chemicals) there is >absolutely no reason >>to have a refractometer (as a consumer). > >well, but what are you going to eat until you find it, for starters, The same things that I've *been* eating - those that look and taste the best. (When it comes to real food, *taste* is also a good indicator of quality/brix). That includes pastured NON organic eggs with deep orange yolks, pastured non-organic meat, non *certified* produce from my dad's and brother's gardens, and some certified and some non certified produce from local farmers. and >for second, the chemicals will NEVER not be an issue, because they don't >just affect your broccoli. they affect your air and your water and your >local soil erosion and...see? You misunderstand. Have you done much reading on the nature of high brix plants? I said they will not be an issue with high brix produce because it doesn't *require* toxic chemicals to keep pests off. They are pest-resistant. Therefore if high brix ever became the norm, there would be no more market for toxic gardening chemicals. > >> so sure, organics is not perfect, but it's a tool, >> >and it's something. you can't hang your hat on something that >doesn't yet >> >exist, >> >>But they DO exist. It's a matter or *finding* them. But yes, if we don't >>KNOW where they are or have access to them, IF indeed organic farmers are >>moving toward high fertility soil, then that is certainly a good >thing. But >>there ARE high brix producers out there. > >well, organic producers (which i have, for the purpose of this discussion, >limited to my experience in vermont, since i can't honestly know about >other places) ARE moving toward higher fertility soil - it's required of >us. if you think they're not in your area, or if you think that not enough >of them are using brix to help, then call up your local NOFA board and ask >to give a lecture, a workshop, to appear at the conference >(although, local >would be better: we already have several presenters teaching how to use >refractometers at the big NOFA conferences). We don't have NOFA as mentioned, we have MOFGA (Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Assoc.) I am introducing my refractometer to local farmers already and also to our local WAPF chapter, and to folks who will be involved in a new Maine chapter up north. i should have thought of this >for you last week when you were asking! What was I asking? >>But, as said before, when I pay a premium price for organic food I >>don't want to be paying for education that I may or may not agree with. I >>want to be paying for the *food*. > >well in that case, you will have to produce all of your own food, or pay >for the education with your own time, which may work for you, but isn't >going to work for people in boston. Not actually, I'll just continue buying non-certified but defacto organic food that looks and tastes the best (and that doesn't rot so quickly - a sign of low brix). > >> the organic label isn't meant to absolve people of the >> >responsibility of food selection, it just provides a baseline. so until >> >there's a High Brix Store, i'm glad for what we've got. >> >>Right, it definitely shouldn't absolve people of the >responsibility of food >>selection. However, I think may people are selecting organic >because, by and >>large, it claims to be *better* than conventional produced foods leading >>consumers to believe they are getting a more nutritious product. >If organic >>advertising were honest, it would just say that it's got less >chemicals. But >>then consumers might think twice about paying a premium price if they knew >>that! > >but that's all it says! i've never seen anyone claim that an >organic tomato >has more vitamins than a conventional one. Sure it does. A quick internet search will reveal as such. There have been a few studies that found organic produce to be higher in the vits/mins tested as well (not sure if any were conducted in the US). I found one on the internet yesterday. But most of the increases were statistically insignificant. They crossed it off to low sample size. From what I've learned on this subject, I'd say it has nothing to do with sample size, because just about everyone I've spoken to or read about also finds that organic produce is not higher brix than non-organic. what i have seen is that it has >less chemicals, and that it tastes better, and those two things i >think are >true, though admittedly, the latter is subjective. Not really, not when it comes to real food. Our taste buds DO tell us which is higher brix just like a cow's does, just like an insect's does. Maybe the organic food where you are IS higher brix, but it's likely a rarity, as it doesn't compare to the experiences of many others involved in agriculture. > > >>Anyway, I'm not saying that what you are doing with NOFA is worthless >>whatsoever. IF NOFA and other state or even better - private certifying >>bodies (don't count on the Feds for this) get farmers at least >interested in >>soil fertility and nutritional quality, even if their methods don't work, >>perhaps those farmers will keep digging deeper until they find a >method that >>does work such as Albrecht's and Reams'. > ><--banging head on desk. >ok. how can i possibly say this another way? organic farmers ARE using >albrecht, and reams, and we ARE trying to raise the soil quality, and we >are NOT using phospho-nitrates in this attempt. It seems like you assume that all organic farmers are doing what you and NOFA are doing. I really think you guys have a unique situation if indeed you are following the work of Albrecht and Reams. Further, I don't know precisely how long it takes to to achieve higher brix for each crop, but I'm confident it doesn't take 33 years. That's how long MOFGA has been around. And after 33 years of teaching whatever it is they're teaching, the result is poor quality produce, by and large, from the samples I've tested thus far. If NOFA's teaching effective soil building practices, I'd be interested to know how long they've been teaching it and what the results are. Do you know of ANY NOFA farmer who consitently gets " good " or " excellent " brix readings? > >i think our problem is that you are saying: organic isn't a high-brix >panacea, so why bother! it's more expensive and it's not any better! >and i'm saying: hey! organic is trying, give it a chance. all these things >you want, we're doing, but it's not an overnight process! I'm not saying don't bother. I think I've already said this several times, but I'll say it again. If_it's_working, then_I_fully_support_it. The question is, is it working? Yes, I fully understand that it takes time - I expressed that in my last post. It certainly doesn't take 33 years to get to 2.5 brix *certified* spinach, though! So, I agree with you in giving it a chance IF it's actually increasing soil fertility. I would LOVE to see some evidence of improved soil fertility as a result of MOFGA, and now, national certification regulations. *So far* none, IME. But again, maybe you are extremely fortunate to have an association that actually teaches soil building methods that work. > >it takes years and years and years to do this work. it's hard work, and >it's expensive, and no one appreciates it. the worst part of it is that >when i read the stuff you're writing, i just want to cry. you're >one of the > " allies " , and if i can't get across to you that it's a process and we're >trying, then how am i to educate the rest of the world? There's nothing to get across. I already agreed more than once that it's a process, and as long as it WORKS, I fully support it. Not only that, but I already expressed my appreciation for the work that you do, and have expressed my appreciation to local organic farmers for the work that they do. So there is really no need to cry :-) Suze Fisher Lapdog Design, Inc. Web Design & Development http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine http://www.westonaprice.org ---------------------------- " The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " -- Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher. The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics <http://www.thincs.org> ---------------------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 6, 2004 Report Share Posted July 6, 2004 > RE: Holy Organic > >>Have you read the Albrecht papers and are you familiar with *his* >methods of >>improving soil fertility? Which, as I mentioned, I understand to be >>unconventional even to organic farmers? > >ok. albrecht. albrechtalbrechtalbrecht oh my god, albrecht! yes, >he's super >nifty. i only just got his papers in the last weeks, but i'm reading >nothing new there. everything he has said i've already been taught by NOFA >people. most of NOFA is staffed by WAPF people and by biodynamic people, >and most of the small farmers are moving towards WAPF or are there >already. >you can't confuse hain group and organic argibiz with small diversified >organic farmers - it's just not the same. I'm not confusing them, but again, I think NOFA sounds like a rarity if it's so densely populated with WAPers and are teaching Albrecht's work. > >and now i'm probably sounding as bad with " NOFA " as you are with > " albrecht " , but my point is, don't demonize us! Firstly, I haven't *deomonized* anyone. I'm just stating the facts about the quality of produce and how organic is not a *guarantee* of quality. I realize the reality of poor quality certified produce is painful, especially to a hard working organic farmer. But stating the state of affairs, is by no means an attack. Secondly, on a board committed to Price's teachings, one would expect us to discuss albrechtalbrechtalbrechtalbrechtalbrecht since WAP apparently was greatly influenced by Albrecht's work, so much so, that he published an address given by Albrecht(Food is Fabricated Soil Fertility) as chapter 23 in NAPD. Albrecht is the ONLY person other than Price to have written a chapter of NAPD and Price makes it clear that Albrecht's contribution to human " rehabilitation " is great. Besides, since Chi hasn't been around for a while someone needs to be the Albrecht gnat, since we seem to so often forget we are degenerating because our *soil* is degenerating. We rarely ever discuss that here, yet it's at the root of our mass degeneration as a nation! but just...please >understand that in this search for the golden brix (hee!), well, we're all >in it together. some of us (one farm in particular, who's been at >it for 25 >years) are way up there on the scale, and others are just starting >out, What kind of readings are they getting? Can you give any specifics? You've made a couple of vague references to this, but I'm curious as to what level readings you're talking about. And I don't want to sound like a broken record, but I KNOW we're in this together - that's what I said in my first post on this subject! IF organic farmers are indeed effectively building high fertility soil, even though it may take years, then I applaud them and fully support them. But I've not yet SEEN such results, maybe you guys have and maybe MOFGA has something to learn from NOFA. Or maybe I haven't tested enough different farms yet, although my experiences with brix readings so far mirror those of many folks in agriculture who've taken far more extensive measurements than myself. Suze Fisher Lapdog Design, Inc. Web Design & Development http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine http://www.westonaprice.org ---------------------------- " The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " -- Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher. The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics <http://www.thincs.org> ---------------------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 6, 2004 Report Share Posted July 6, 2004 At 10:01 AM 7/6/2004, you wrote: >There's nothing to get across. I already agreed more than once that it's a >process, and as long as it WORKS, I fully support it. Not only that, but I >already expressed my appreciation for the work that you do, and have >expressed my appreciation to local organic farmers for the work that they >do. So there is really no need to cry :-) suze - you're right, you have. and i've been trying to figure out why i still don't feel the love! and i figured it out! it's because you keep saying stuff like " well, sure, IF it's working " ...(not a direct quote)...like you don't believe me. believe me! i'm working hard! and i've only been making claims for NOFA, cause i just don't know anything about the other organizations (which although i said a few times already, i felt i should restate for clarity). maybe vermont will be this little high-brix sanctuary... i will try to take some time to type out people's brix charts for you - i know you're dying to see them but i just haven't had the time to type them all out. i just wish that instead of [everyone who's been posting] being angry that organic food is poison or that it's lying to you or whatever other claims have been made (not neccessarily by suze), that people would be glad that there's already an organization in place where people can learn about this stuff, and if the local one to you isn't teaching it, then you can start. ours is, so maybe we're just lucky. that and, at the very least, at the really very least, we've taken the first step with getting the chemicals out, and getting the word out that there's something besides monsanto. -katja Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 6, 2004 Report Share Posted July 6, 2004 >i just wish that instead of [everyone who's been posting] being angry that >organic food is poison or that it's lying to you or whatever other claims >have been made (not neccessarily by suze), that people would be glad that >there's already an organization in place where people can learn about this >stuff, and if the local one to you isn't teaching it, then you can start. >ours is, so maybe we're just lucky. that and, at the very least, at the >really very least, we've taken the first step with getting the chemicals >out, and getting the word out that there's something besides monsanto. > >-katja Well, I'm jumping in late, but for what it is worth ... Katja is actually DOING farming and most of the others are THEORIZING about farming. Personally I think the " organic " label is a good start ... and a lot of organic farmers are going further (into biodynamic stuff, really grass fed beef etc.). I do buy stuff where I know the farmer ... my beef isn't " organic " because it's raised as a sideline by folks who just have raised cows for a long time and don't really think about " organic " much. Buy my local produce farmer is registered " organic " and I appreciate that he does support that movements. As for " chemicals " ... that gets weird sometimes too. " Natural " isn't always " better " . Our " natural " well water has arsenic in it ... not good at all! Our soil likes to have " lime " added which really is a chemical when you come right down to it. Any time you start using labels, you get inaccuracies ... but the labels are still useful. And anyone who is working on making a good, sustainable, biodynamic farm has my vote ... any methods that work (including labelling stuff organic) are good! -- Heidi Jean Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 6, 2004 Report Share Posted July 6, 2004 > RE: Holy Organic > > >At 10:01 AM 7/6/2004, you wrote: > >>There's nothing to get across. I already agreed more than once that it's a >>process, and as long as it WORKS, I fully support it. Not only that, but I >>already expressed my appreciation for the work that you do, and have >>expressed my appreciation to local organic farmers for the work that they >>do. So there is really no need to cry :-) > > >suze - >you're right, you have. and i've been trying to figure out why i still >don't feel the love! Awwww...you know i love you :-) and i figured it out! it's because you keep saying >stuff like " well, sure, IF it's working " ...(not a direct quote)...like you >don't believe me. believe me! It's not that i don't believe what you are saying about NOFA. I do. But I'm not talking about exceptions to the rule (which I suspect NOFA is), I'm talking about the rule. And from what I'm getting from folks in the ag biz who are into soil fertility and brix, organic is absolutely no guarantee of nutritional quality (which, so far, my own readings, have borne out). i'm working hard! and i've only been making >claims for NOFA, cause i just don't know anything about the other >organizations (which although i said a few times already, i felt i should >restate for clarity). maybe vermont will be this little high-brix >sanctuary... It's possible. > >i will try to take some time to type out people's brix charts for you - i >know you're dying to see them but i just haven't had the time to type them >all out. Oh, I wouldn't ask you to type out a bunch of charts! I know you are far too busy for that. I just wanted a few sample readings of NOFA farms that are getting consistently good or excellent brix readings. Just to get an idea of what they are achieving under NOFA's guidance. Suze Fisher Lapdog Design, Inc. Web Design & Development http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine http://www.westonaprice.org ---------------------------- " The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " -- Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher. The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics <http://www.thincs.org> ---------------------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 6, 2004 Report Share Posted July 6, 2004 In a message dated 7/6/04 4:37:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time, heidis@... writes: > As for " chemicals " ... that gets weird sometimes too. " Natural " > isn't always " better " . Our " natural " well water has arsenic > in it ... not good at all! And " natural " almond flavor extracted from peach pits has cyanide in it, iirc, unlike the chemically identical " artificial " flavor. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 6, 2004 Report Share Posted July 6, 2004 > RE: Holy Organic > >Well, I'm jumping in late, but for what it is worth ... Katja >is actually DOING farming and most of the others are THEORIZING >about farming. It is absolutely true that katja is DOING farming, and I applaud her for what she is doing, sincerely. She does far more than I do to help educate her community on these issues, I must say. However, I want to point out that the information I've posted is mostly from other farmers/gardeners who are DOING farming and gardening, as well. I think some of the other info from non-farming list members thus far is also from experienced farmers and gardeners. So it's not like this is a battle between theory and practice. I don't know if *Albrecht* was a farmer, but he was a brilliant soil scientist (some DOING is involved there) who observed phenomenon and wrote about it and his theory has proven true. So even if *he* wasn't a farmer, it makes his theory no less true than if he were. The same goes for Reams, who, I believe, WAS a gardener, although I'm not certain. And many of his soil/brix/health theories have also been proven. Suze Fisher Lapdog Design, Inc. Web Design & Development http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine http://www.westonaprice.org ---------------------------- " The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " -- Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher. The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics <http://www.thincs.org> ---------------------------- > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 7, 2004 Report Share Posted July 7, 2004 >However, I want to point out that the information I've posted is mostly from >other farmers/gardeners who are DOING farming and gardening, as well. I >think some of the other info from non-farming list members thus far is also >from experienced farmers and gardeners. So it's not like this is a battle >between theory and practice. I don't know if *Albrecht* was a farmer, but he >was a brilliant soil scientist (some DOING is involved there) who observed >phenomenon and wrote about it and his theory has proven true. So even if >*he* wasn't a farmer, it makes his theory no less true than if he were. The >same goes for Reams, who, I believe, WAS a gardener, although I'm not >certain. And many of his soil/brix/health theories have also been proven. > > >Suze Fisher I'm not arguing that ... I don't think many " organic " farmers would. But on the larger issues of having " organizations " and having an " organic " label ... part of that is economic and marketing. Trying to make a living off a farm (vs. raising a few chickens for eggs) involves a lot more than JUST raising a quality product. The " organic " label costs some money ... and it makes it easier to market your product. The average consumer doesn't have a brix meter. Our local farmer sells a lot to restaurant chains ... they want to tell their customers that they serve " organic " . Yeah, it COULD be low quality organic (though IMO it is pretty good stuff, it could be better but everyone is still learning) but again, a lot of it is about marketing and about making ends meet so he CAN provide decent produce. In terms of " selling " produce in general, there are sooo many issues. I tend to think that it is hard in general to " market " something in a way that ensures a quality product. For instance ... I have my chickens running around, eating bugs. That means I have " live " manure around. If a kid got sick from salmonella, I'd be immediately suspect ... but since I don't sell vegies I don't have to worry about it. Odwalla use manure on their apple trees, some got into some apple juice, a few people got sick and now they have to pastuerize everything. But if I use manure on MY apple trees and eat non-pastuerized apple juice, I'm unlikely to get sick (or my family) because we've been exposed to said manure and are likely immune to whatever bacteria it harbors. As for soil quality ... really, it's good to have high quality soil. But it's also true that much of the world never has had really high quality soil, even before modern agriculture. Somehow people (and cattle) did ok, at least before modern times. Price's skull study showed that all the skulls were in good shape (from a dental standpoint). But the tribes went downhill really fast as soon as a trading post opened ... surely their local soil quality didn't self-destruct in 20 years, and surely they were not eating JUST trading post goods. And a lot depends on the crop ... our chicken enriched soil is growing GREAT collard greens right now. But the beans don't like that soil at all. The blackberries don't like fertilizer much at all, but they like the usual glacier-scrubbed soil that came with this land. -- Heidi Jean Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 7, 2004 Report Share Posted July 7, 2004 At 05:38 PM 7/6/2004, you wrote: > >suze - > >you're right, you have. and i've been trying to figure out why i still > >don't feel the love! > >Awwww...you know i love you :-) heehee! fanks suze!! with the love and um, a good night's sleep!, i feel much better now! > and i figured it out! it's because you keep saying > >stuff like " well, sure, IF it's working " ...(not a direct quote)...like you > >don't believe me. believe me! > >It's not that i don't believe what you are saying about NOFA. I do. But I'm >not talking about exceptions to the rule (which I suspect NOFA is), I'm >talking about the rule. And from what I'm getting from folks in the ag biz >who are into soil fertility and brix, organic is absolutely no guarantee of >nutritional quality (which, so far, my own readings, have borne out). i don't know. i just have no experience outside of vermont yet. i truly hope that we aren't an exception!! i'm afk for the rest of the week - i took some vacation time to work on getting stuff ready for our open house/open farm whatever on july 25th...hopefully by next week i'll also have the website all shiney and polished (at the moment it's just a one-page place holder) - i'm just waiting for the pictures to come back! -katja Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 7, 2004 Report Share Posted July 7, 2004 > RE: Holy Organic > > > >>However, I want to point out that the information I've posted is >mostly from >>other farmers/gardeners who are DOING farming and gardening, as well. I >>think some of the other info from non-farming list members thus >far is also >>from experienced farmers and gardeners. So it's not like this is a battle >>between theory and practice. I don't know if *Albrecht* was a >farmer, but he >>was a brilliant soil scientist (some DOING is involved there) who observed >>phenomenon and wrote about it and his theory has proven true. So even if >>*he* wasn't a farmer, it makes his theory no less true than if he >were. The >>same goes for Reams, who, I believe, WAS a gardener, although I'm not >>certain. And many of his soil/brix/health theories have also been proven. >> >> >>Suze Fisher > >I'm not arguing that ... I don't think many " organic " farmers would. >But on the larger issues of having " organizations " and having an > " organic " label ... part of that is economic and marketing. Trying to >make a living off a farm (vs. raising a few chickens for eggs) involves >a lot more than JUST raising a quality product. The " organic " label >costs some money ... and it makes it easier to market your product. >The average consumer doesn't have a brix meter. The problem is, whether the average consumer had a brix meter or not, it still wouldn't increase the nutritional value of organic food. What it probably WOULD do, however, is make the average consumer aware that the organic label is no guarantee of nutritional quality. Maybe THEN, if consumers demanded higher nutritional products, organic organizatoins as a whole, might change their certification regulations to *require* enhancement of nutritional quality in order to be certified. > >As for soil quality ... really, it's good to have high quality soil. But >it's also true that much of the world never has had really high quality >soil, even before modern agriculture. Somehow people (and cattle) >did ok, at least before modern times. What do you mean by " did OK " ? They degenerated sooner than WAP's primitives? Or...? Price's skull study showed >that all the skulls were in good shape (from a dental standpoint). >But the tribes went downhill really fast as soon as a trading post >opened ... surely their local soil quality didn't self-destruct in 20 >years, and surely they were not eating JUST trading post goods. This reminds me, I think you've posted before about native american tribes' health going down with the onset of corn cultivation and how that's a result of the corn displacing more nutrient dense foods. I read somewhere recently (I think Albrecht, but am not sure) that there was a decline in soil fertility that corresponded with the use of corn in the native american diet, and he attributed the decline (as evidenced by skeletons) to declining soil fertility! I have no idea what would've happened had they eaten high brix corn rather than that grown on low fertility soil, but it's an interesting thought... Suze Fisher Lapdog Design, Inc. Web Design & Development http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine http://www.westonaprice.org ---------------------------- " The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " -- Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher. The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics <http://www.thincs.org> ---------------------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 8, 2004 Report Share Posted July 8, 2004 >The problem is, whether the average consumer had a brix meter or not, it >still wouldn't increase the nutritional value of organic food. What it >probably WOULD do, however, is make the average consumer aware that the >organic label is no guarantee of nutritional quality. Maybe THEN, if >consumers demanded higher nutritional products, organic organizatoins as a >whole, might change their certification regulations to *require* enhancement >of nutritional quality in order to be certified. In an ideal world, that would be wonderful! But things just don't change overnight ... as idealistic as I may be about some things, to actually change the world you have to do it in steps. The " health food " movement started in the 70's, and is only now really going mainstream. The fact that some of the infrastructure started then, and some of the food stores, has laid the groundwork for stores like Whole Foods, which are now going a few steps further than the sprouts and tofu beginnings and are offering better meats and fish. If you have organizations and an infrastructure for " organic, " then sooner or later those organizations can start adding additional info ... like about nutrient quality, grass fed, pastured, GMO status, how far it was shipped (for the energy conscious), lack of irradiation and even allergy info. There are LOTS of issues about foods, of which pesticide/antibiotic use is just the first. So I for one applaud Katja's joining HER local organization .... if more folks like her join, then eventually the organization will get smarter. > >As for soil quality ... really, it's good to have high quality soil. But >>it's also true that much of the world never has had really high quality >>soil, even before modern agriculture. Somehow people (and cattle) >>did ok, at least before modern times. > >What do you mean by " did OK " ? They degenerated sooner than WAP's primitives? >Or...? I mean that most primatives (on good or bad soil) did better than most folks in the city (on good or bad soil). Living on the foods your body is designed for, it will work better than if it is living off foods it isn't designed for. Price looked at hundreds of skulls, and all of them were in pretty good shape tooth-wise. I doubt all of them got an ideal diet from a soil fertility point of view. >This reminds me, I think you've posted before about native american tribes' >health going down with the onset of corn cultivation and how that's a result >of the corn displacing more nutrient dense foods. I read somewhere recently >(I think Albrecht, but am not sure) that there was a decline in soil >fertility that corresponded with the use of corn in the native american >diet, and he attributed the decline (as evidenced by skeletons) to declining >soil fertility! I have no idea what would've happened had they eaten high >brix corn rather than that grown on low fertility soil, but it's an >interesting thought... The stuff I've read about corn and the Indians had to do with arthritis, which (IMO) probably isn't so much about nutrients as it is about lectins and allergy issues. Wheat and corn are both pretty hard on the joints ... rice doesn't seem to have so many issues (though it isn't high in nutrients either). But I'd guess he is saying that growing corn *caused* the low soil fertility? A diet high in corn is also pretty low in protein though, unless maybe there are lots of beans with it, and a corn/bean diet would still need other foods to supplement it even if they were grown in good soil, I think. -- Heidi Jean Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 8, 2004 Report Share Posted July 8, 2004 In a message dated 7/7/04 9:37:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time, heidis@... writes: > I mean that most primatives (on good or bad soil) did better than most > folks in the city (on good or bad soil). Living on the foods your body > is designed for, it will work better than if it is living off foods it > isn't designed for. Price looked at hundreds of skulls, and all of > them were in pretty good shape tooth-wise. I doubt all of them got > an ideal diet from a soil fertility point of view. From what I recall, and I read NAPD once nearly two years ago, the skulls he looked for were among hunter-gatherers. He found the pre-Columbian hunter-gatherers to have MUCH better skeletal structure and thicker skulls than post-Columbian hunter-gatherers. That could represent food changes, or deteriorating soils. But, in any case, wouldn't hunter-gatherers be much less likely to have soil issues than agriculturists of any form? Further, Price noted that one of the things all his groups had in common was ways of maintaining soil. He noted the difference in health between Gaelics that did and did not have the smoked thatch roof as fertilizer. Didn't he also grow foods in sample soils from places and compare them to foods in American soil? Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 8, 2004 Report Share Posted July 8, 2004 In a message dated 7/8/04 1:48:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time, s.fisher22@... writes: > >But, in any case, wouldn't hunter-gatherers be much less likely to > >have soil > >issues than agriculturists of any form? > > I don't see why. You can develop good soil in agriculture and > hunter/gatherers could've spent time hunting/gathering on poor soil, > although I suspect they probably had a way to identify high quality plants > just as animals do. So in times of abundance, they probably had a high > quality diet. Because nature has ways of maintaining soil fertility. Microbe populations change to adjust to changing conditions, and plants that don't do well in a given soil are quickly eaten by insects or crowded out by plants that do do well in that soil. Furthermore, erosion is extremely limited compared to agriculture, etc, etc. So, since most agricultural practices destroy soil fertility (though, if done with the appropriate technology and recognition that nature's natural maintenance system must be imitated, doesn't necessarily have to), one would expect that hunter-gatherer societies would naturally tend to live on better soil than agriculturalists, especially agriculturalists that didn't have the practices Price observed of maintaining soil fertility. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 8, 2004 Report Share Posted July 8, 2004 > RE: Holy Organic > > > > >>The problem is, whether the average consumer had a brix meter or not, it >>still wouldn't increase the nutritional value of organic food. What it >>probably WOULD do, however, is make the average consumer aware that the >>organic label is no guarantee of nutritional quality. Maybe THEN, if >>consumers demanded higher nutritional products, organic organizatoins as a >>whole, might change their certification regulations to *require* >enhancement >>of nutritional quality in order to be certified. > >In an ideal world, that would be wonderful! But things just don't change >overnight ... as idealistic as I may be about some things, to actually >change the world you have to do it in steps. The " health food " >movement started in the 70's, and is only now really going mainstream. >The fact that some of the infrastructure started then, and some of >the food stores, has laid the groundwork for stores like Whole Foods, >which are now going a few steps further than the sprouts and tofu >beginnings and are offering better meats and fish. I realize these things take time, as I've mentioned in previous posts. But the question is not HOW LONG will it take the organic movement to " get there " but is_it_actually_moving_in_that_direction in any meaningful way? It seems like *NOFA* is, and maybe Oregon Tilth is, but it doesn't seem like the rest of the country is. As I asked in a previous post, does it really take 33 years to get 2.5 brix certified organic spinach???? At that rate many generations willl be long dead before we have access to any decent food. In any case, while you guys are talking about the " organic movement " which the feds now regulate, (and in no way, shape or form, does the regulating body seem to give a hoot about nutritional quality), there are people already building and maintaing fertile soil and growing excellent crops on that soil. It would be great if the organic movement would try to emulate farmers and gardeners who actually grow high nutrition crops. I do realize that they need to be educated about HOW to do this. I'm not sure why the " how to " materials are not in wide use among organic farmers already...? >> >As for soil quality ... really, it's good to have high quality soil. But >>>it's also true that much of the world never has had really high quality >>>soil, even before modern agriculture. Somehow people (and cattle) >>>did ok, at least before modern times. >> >>What do you mean by " did OK " ? They degenerated sooner than WAP's >primitives? >>Or...? > >I mean that most primatives (on good or bad soil) did better than most >folks in the city (on good or bad soil). Living on the foods your body >is designed for, it will work better than if it is living off foods it >isn't designed for. This goes back to the point I've made a few times already - it's both *quality* AND *composition*that are important. Just compostion alone won't bring radiant health, and neither will great quality, if it's the wrong food for YOU. Price looked at hundreds of skulls, and all of >them were in pretty good shape tooth-wise. I doubt all of them got >an ideal diet from a soil fertility point of view. It *requires* healthy soil to produce healthy bodies. That is really the bottom line as Albrecht wrote. Price seemed to believe the same thing. I don't see how you think any living creature can be healthy without a high quality diet (ergo, grown/raised on high fertility soil). Sure there are plenty of shades of gray in between, but that doesn't detract from the fact that healthy soil = healthy humans and unhealthy soil = unhealthy humans. I think you seem to be talking about a gray area that doesn't quite reach " high " fertility soil/diet, but somewhere close to it? Really, otherwise these folks wouldn't have healthy bodies (if indeed they were healthy). > > >>This reminds me, I think you've posted before about native >american tribes' >>health going down with the onset of corn cultivation and how >that's a result >>of the corn displacing more nutrient dense foods. I read >somewhere recently >>(I think Albrecht, but am not sure) that there was a decline in soil >>fertility that corresponded with the use of corn in the native american >>diet, and he attributed the decline (as evidenced by skeletons) >to declining >>soil fertility! I have no idea what would've happened had they eaten high >>brix corn rather than that grown on low fertility soil, but it's an >>interesting thought... > >The stuff I've read about corn and the Indians had to do with arthritis, >which (IMO) probably isn't so much about nutrients as it is about lectins >and allergy issues. Wheat and corn are both pretty hard on the joints ... >rice doesn't seem to have so many issues (though it isn't high in nutrients >either). But I'd guess he is saying that growing corn *caused* the low >soil fertility? No, the other way around. I'm not arguing that corn and soy are good as staples in anyone's diet, but it's worth noting that plants grown on high fertility soil have a lot less anti-nutrients than those grown on poor soils. I don't know if that includes lectins or not, though. A diet high in corn is also pretty low in protein though, >unless maybe there are lots of beans with it, and a corn/bean diet would >still need other foods to supplement it even if they were grown in >good soil, I think. I think Albrecht wrote that high fertility soil produces higher protein plants, FWIW. (Or it might have been Arden Andersen. Pretty sure it was albrecht.) Suze Fisher Lapdog Design, Inc. Web Design & Development http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine http://www.westonaprice.org ---------------------------- " The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " -- Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher. The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics <http://www.thincs.org> ---------------------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 8, 2004 Report Share Posted July 8, 2004 > Re: Holy Organic > > >In a message dated 7/7/04 9:37:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time, >heidis@... writes: > > >> I mean that most primatives (on good or bad soil) did better than most >> folks in the city (on good or bad soil). Living on the foods your body >> is designed for, it will work better than if it is living off foods it >> isn't designed for. Price looked at hundreds of skulls, and all of >> them were in pretty good shape tooth-wise. I doubt all of them got >> an ideal diet from a soil fertility point of view. > >From what I recall, and I read NAPD once nearly two years ago, the >skulls he >looked for were among hunter-gatherers. He found the pre-Columbian >hunter-gatherers to have MUCH better skeletal structure and >thicker skulls than >post-Columbian hunter-gatherers. That could represent food >changes, or deteriorating >soils. Or both! > >But, in any case, wouldn't hunter-gatherers be much less likely to >have soil >issues than agriculturists of any form? I don't see why. You can develop good soil in agriculture and hunter/gatherers could've spent time hunting/gathering on poor soil, although I suspect they probably had a way to identify high quality plants just as animals do. So in times of abundance, they probably had a high quality diet. > >Further, Price noted that one of the things all his groups had in >common was >ways of maintaining soil. He noted the difference in health >between Gaelics >that did and did not have the smoked thatch roof as fertilizer. >Didn't he also >grow foods in sample soils from places and compare them to foods >in American >soil? I don't remember. But I can't imagine that Price's groups DIDN'T have fertile soil. They MUST have had good soil in order to achieve the vibrant health they enjoyed. Suze Fisher Lapdog Design, Inc. Web Design & Development http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine http://www.westonaprice.org ---------------------------- " The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " -- Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher. The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics <http://www.thincs.org> ---------------------------- > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 8, 2004 Report Share Posted July 8, 2004 In a message dated 7/8/04 9:00:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time, heidis@... writes: > " Healthy soil " is always relative though ... the Gaelic > soil is considered very poor (as is the climate) but healthy people > lived there in Price's time (mainly because they ate a lot of seafood). And because of the smoked thatch rooves, apparently. The ones who didn't fertilize their crops with them all had tuberculosis. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 9, 2004 Report Share Posted July 9, 2004 >Price looked at hundreds of skulls, and all of >>them were in pretty good shape tooth-wise. I doubt all of them got >>an ideal diet from a soil fertility point of view. > >It *requires* healthy soil to produce healthy bodies. That is really the >bottom line as Albrecht wrote. Price seemed to believe the same thing. I >don't see how you think any living creature can be healthy without a high >quality diet (ergo, grown/raised on high fertility soil). Sure there are >plenty of shades of gray in between, but that doesn't detract from the fact >that healthy soil = healthy humans and unhealthy soil = unhealthy humans. I >think you seem to be talking about a gray area that doesn't quite reach > " high " fertility soil/diet, but somewhere close to it? Really, otherwise >these folks wouldn't have healthy bodies (if indeed they were healthy). Mostly when it comes to farming currently, it IS a grey area ... I mean, when I grow vegies I'm sure it is less that *ideally* fertile, but if the plant grows and seems reasonable healthy, it is probably reasonably healthy for me (if the soil was really really bad the plant would die). It might be lacking in some nutrient or another (and no plant has ALL the nutrients). " Healthy soil " is always relative though ... the Gaelic soil is considered very poor (as is the climate) but healthy people lived there in Price's time (mainly because they ate a lot of seafood). Our soil is very poor (though the chickens help a lot!) but it grows good berries. But, well, I think I got kind of sidetracked so let me reshape my original " thesis statement " (as my English teacher would call it). I was responding to the statement " Cows fed low quality hay are as bad as humans on SAD " (paraphrasing a little). It's the " as bad as " part that I was responding to, because the analogy isn't IMO quite accurate. There is a Maslow's triangle of sorts to diet. For humans: HA: Species-appropriate food grown on great soil (Fruit, vegies, meat, high-brix, no pesticides etc.). HB: Species-appropriate food grown on less than great soil., organic. HC: Whole food diet, but not quite species-appropriate (Whole grains, fruit, vegies, meat), from organic sources. HD: Whole food diet, from the supermarket. HF: SAD (high in fructose, white flour, soy oil etc.). The bovine equivalent would be: BA: Species appropriate food grown on great soil. (Free range, grass) BB: Species appropriate food grown on less than great soil. (Hay and grass) BC: Good food, not quite species appropriate (For a cow, this means they have grain added). BD: Packaged cow food, mostly grass based. BF: Corn-fed beef. So, much of the beef many of us get is " BB, " which is a far cry better than " BF " . To say that " BB " is as bad as " HF " doesn't make sense ... the WORST hay and grass diet for a cow is still better than a full-corn diet, just as the worst fruit/vegie/meat diet is still better than a fructose/white flour diet. If in fact BB is truly " as bad as " HF, then HB is " as bad as " HF, and I may as well go back to eating Twinkies and Coke, because the " HA " and " BA " foods are next to impossible to gaurantee at this point (and throughout most of history). -- Heidi Jean Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 9, 2004 Report Share Posted July 9, 2004 > RE: Holy Organic > > > >>Price looked at hundreds of skulls, and all of >>>them were in pretty good shape tooth-wise. I doubt all of them got >>>an ideal diet from a soil fertility point of view. >> >>It *requires* healthy soil to produce healthy bodies. That is really the >>bottom line as Albrecht wrote. Price seemed to believe the same thing. I >>don't see how you think any living creature can be healthy without a high >>quality diet (ergo, grown/raised on high fertility soil). Sure there are >>plenty of shades of gray in between, but that doesn't detract >from the fact >>that healthy soil = healthy humans and unhealthy soil = unhealthy >humans. I >>think you seem to be talking about a gray area that doesn't quite reach >> " high " fertility soil/diet, but somewhere close to it? Really, otherwise >>these folks wouldn't have healthy bodies (if indeed they were healthy). > >Mostly when it comes to farming currently, it IS a grey area ... I mean, >when I grow vegies I'm sure it is less that *ideally* fertile, but if the >plant grows and seems reasonable healthy, it is probably reasonably >healthy for me (if the soil was really really bad the plant would die). >It might be lacking in some nutrient or another (and no plant has ALL >the nutrients). IIRC, according to Reams, plants grown on high fertlity soil tend to have something like 84 minerals, I think it was. Conventional testing only covers a handful. No one expects plants to have such a broad spectrum of nutrients because most people aren't used to high brix plants. " Healthy soil " is always relative though ... the Gaelic >soil is considered very poor (as is the climate) but healthy people >lived there in Price's time (mainly because they ate a lot of seafood). But also, as mentioned, because the prepared the soil just right with the ash from the straw huts! > >But, well, I think I got kind of sidetracked so let me reshape my original > " thesis statement " (as my English teacher would call it). I was >responding to >the statement " Cows fed low quality hay are as bad as humans on SAD " >(paraphrasing a little). It's the " as bad as " part that I was >responding to, because >the analogy isn't IMO quite accurate. There is a Maslow's triangle >of sorts to >diet. For humans: > >HA: Species-appropriate food grown on great soil (Fruit, vegies, meat, > high-brix, no pesticides etc.). > >HB: Species-appropriate food grown on less than great soil., organic. > >HC: Whole food diet, but not quite species-appropriate (Whole grains, > fruit, vegies, meat), from organic sources. > >HD: Whole food diet, from the supermarket. > >HF: SAD (high in fructose, white flour, soy oil etc.). > >The bovine equivalent would be: > >BA: Species appropriate food grown on great soil. (Free range, grass) > >BB: Species appropriate food grown on less than great soil. (Hay and grass) > >BC: Good food, not quite species appropriate (For a cow, this > means they have grain added). > >BD: Packaged cow food, mostly grass based. > >BF: Corn-fed beef. > >So, much of the beef many of us get is " BB, " which is a far >cry better than " BF " . To say that " BB " is as bad as " HF " doesn't >make sense ... the WORST hay and grass diet for a cow is still >better than a full-corn diet, just as the worst fruit/vegie/meat >diet is still better than a fructose/white flour diet. I don't disagree with your breakdown. But I was making the point that the cow on low brix grass and the SAD dieter are both on low nutrient diets. Which is true. And they will both suffer health consequences as a result. When you break it down into all the different *types* of low nutrient diets that you've outlined (the gray areas) I agree that that the species-appropriate low quality diets are MORE comparable. But still, in a broader sense, all the low nutrient diets will result in negative health effects ultimately. > >If in fact BB is truly " as bad as " HF, then HB is " as bad as " HF, >and I may as well go back to eating Twinkies and Coke, because >the " HA " and " BA " foods are next to impossible to gaurantee >at this point (and throughout most of history). I doubt it. I bet the HA and BA were more the norm before the agricultural revolution. Furthermore there's absolutely no reason you can't guarantee that you won't get HA foods, especially if you have a garden and/or raise your own meat. People ARE growing/raising food this way. I get a sense that several folks have expressed that it's just not doable, or too rare to find to even bother with eating a high quality diet. But I just don't think that's true. Suze Fisher Lapdog Design, Inc. Web Design & Development http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine http://www.westonaprice.org ---------------------------- " The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " -- Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher. The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics <http://www.thincs.org> ---------------------------- > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 9, 2004 Report Share Posted July 9, 2004 Suze Fisher Lapdog Design, Inc. Web Design & Development http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine http://www.westonaprice.org ---------------------------- " The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " -- Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher. The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics <http://www.thincs.org> ---------------------------- > Re: Holy Organic > > >In a message dated 7/8/04 1:48:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time, >s.fisher22@... writes: > > >> >But, in any case, wouldn't hunter-gatherers be much less likely to >> >have soil >> >issues than agriculturists of any form? >> >> I don't see why. You can develop good soil in agriculture and >> hunter/gatherers could've spent time hunting/gathering on poor soil, >> although I suspect they probably had a way to identify high >quality plants >> just as animals do. So in times of abundance, they probably had a high >> quality diet. > >Because nature has ways of maintaining soil fertility. Right. But that doesn't mean every acre on the planet is or was fertile soil. There are deserts and other areas of non-fertile soil. Microbe >populations >change to adjust to changing conditions, and plants that don't do >well in a >given soil are quickly eaten by insects or crowded out by plants >that do do well >in that soil. Furthermore, erosion is extremely limited compared to >agriculture, etc, etc. > >So, since most agricultural practices destroy soil fertility >(though, if done >with the appropriate technology and recognition that nature's natural >maintenance system must be imitated, doesn't necessarily have to), >one would expect >that hunter-gatherer societies would naturally tend to live on >better soil than >agriculturalists, especially agriculturalists that didn't have the >practices >Price observed of maintaining soil fertility. Right, but my point was it isn't necessarily so as Price's groups proved. He thought the Dinkas were the healthiest group and their diet was partly grains, ergo, agriculture. But even if they weren't, his healthy groups included both agriculturists and hunter/gatherers. That's why I said I don't see why hunter/gatherer's *necessarily* have an advantage. Really, Price's groups are the best proof of that. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.