RE: Organic Food: Malnutrition without Poison

[Guest guest]

n , Heidi Schuppenhauer <>

> It might be how LONG they do the grain feeding. I got that info

from a New York

> Times article on cattle rearing (a GREAT article but it's not

online anymore). They

> fed them grains for 6 months, I think. " Grain finished " cattle only

get grain for

> a few weeks. I've talked to folks who SWEAR you MUST grain finish to

> get decent beef, so it was kind of a leap of faith to get an old

steer

> that was purely grass fed.

>

> However, some of it might have to do with the breed. That same year

I got

> a young Angus, really young, and that one was tough and nowhere near

> as good as the old Longhorn steer. The Longhorn had less fat ...

there was NO

> fat under the skin at all, though there was a fair amount

internally, cushioning

> the organs, and some in the meat (in the rib steaks, esp.). But the

Longhorn

> was (is) more juicy and better meat. Both were grass fed though.

>

> I commend you for getting to know your sources though! Some folks

> have thought I was being sort of morbid for " knowing " the steer ...

but

> if you don't know the source, haven't seen the steer alive, how do

you

> know it was handled decently? The " Don't ask don't tell " policy

doesn't

> work for me anymore.

>

> -- Heidi Jean

Maybe the young Angus needed a longer aging time to tenderize it.

Funny though, one would assume it would be " young and tender " . Silly

idea apparently. Can't assume anything!

Our source of raw milk is going to go away in another year of so and

I am going to have to find a new source. I may have to switch to

goats milk. I will really miss the raw butter, but I could get butter

oil as a substitute and buy the organic butter at the store. Do you

think that is a wise idea? I'm planning ahead.

All this finding of food takes time and effort, especially when we

don't have our own farm or ranch. I'm rather " famous " in my family

for being picky about my food sources. Isn't it interesting I have

noticed everyone loves to come over and eat at our house. As the kids

say, NT rules!

One more thing. My 30 something son came over the other day and

looked in the refrigerator. He said, " Mom, there aren't any labels in

here! " It was a slight exaggeration, but I really laughed, because of

his expression and the truth of the situation.

Sheila

[Guest guest]

> Re: Organic Food: Malnutrition without Poison

>

>

>--- In , Lynn Siprelle <lynn@s...>

>wrote:

>> > OK - it's all hopeless - I'll go and shoot myself now and not

>have to

>> > worry about it.

>> Yeah, totally. Any solutions, Chi? All I'm hearing

>> is criticisms. It's easy to stand at the sidelines and

>> tell the people doing the work that

>> they're doing it all wrong.

>

>This reply is for both Lynn and Chris:

>Even in reading Albrecht, I find there is no easy way or " Albrecht

>method " to turn soil that produces food of low nutritional value

>into soil that produces food of high nutritional value.

There may be no easy answer, but there certainly IS an answer. Not that you

were saying otherwise. Reams seems to have developed a method that employs

Albrecht's view of soil fertility that does create fertile soil and

nutrient-dense plants. But you are right, it's not easy.

Remembering that soil tests test for available

>minerals in the soil, not for minerals in the soil (that is a

>critical difference), the problem is that if you do soil tests with

>several labs, you may get differing results from all of them. Also,

>the mineral availability changes during the year, so the results can

>change depending on when you do the test.

>Of course on the anion side you will see available nitrogen and

>phosphorus. And what does all this tell you? At best I think it

>gives you a " ballpark " idea of where your soil is. If the numbers

>aren't right, what do you do about it? If calcium is low, you can

>add a calcium containing mineral such as calcitic limestone.

The

>problem with adding limestone is apparently not all soil consultants

>who follow the " Albrecht method " apparently ever bothered to read

>Albrecht. They seem to recommend the way to add limestone is to use

>the finest particle size you can get so that it is highly available

>and has the " fastest " reaction. Too bad they don't read the

>scientific test reported by Albrecht in volume I that compared the

>use of 10 mesh and 100 mesh limestone. They usually recommend around

>200 mesh, sigh.

Just to add to that, just because you have the right " amount " of a mineral,

doesn't mean the plant can actually *use* it. If I understand Andersen

correctly in " Science in Agriculture " , microbes can make the difference in

this instance. So, if the " conventional " soil test comes back high for CA,

for example, it doesn't necessarily mean the plants are actually taking up

that CA.

>How do I think we should be discovering how to create good soil?

>That answer lies in the chapter by Albrecht in Weston

>Price's book, in which Albrecht asks " What is soil fertility? " or

>words close to that, I am not looking it up for an exact quote. Then

>he answers and that, to me, is the direction in which we should

>direct our science to discover how to create high soil fertility

>nature's way, probably the only way that will work satisfactorily.

This is where Reams comes in...

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>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

> RE: Organic Food: Malnutrition without Poison

>

>

>

>>Cows grazed on low brix/low soil fertility pasture are the

>>equivalent of human SADers. And from what I understand, low brix pasture

>>grass is the norm.

>>

>>You must feed BOTH good quality and proper composition to maintain good

>>health, and ultimately to obtain radiant health.

>

>Suze:

>

>I'm not sure that is really an apt analogy ... a cow eating low-brix

>grass is like a car with low-octane gas. A cow eating corn is like

>putting diesel oil or sugar water in your tank instead of gas.

>

>Wild ruminants eat good grass and poor grass, but basically they

>do ok.

What are you basing this on?That's like saying that humans eat a

nutrient-dense diet or a nutrient-deficient diet, but basically they do OK.

How can they be lumped together as equivalent? If that is the case, then why

bother eating a nutrient-dense WAP diet? What are we all doing on this list

if eating a nutrient-poor diet will allow us to be as " OK " as a

nutrient-dense one?

My point was that cows eat either a nutrient-dense diet or a

nutrient-deficeint diet (which is what SAD is basically) and that their

respective diets effects their health. Do you disagree?

So do most pastured cattle. There might be some

>shortage of something in the grass ... say, selenium, in which case

>a wild cattle will go lick a rock somewhere or find some pasture that

>does have that element (like the inland humans traded for iodine

>containing seafood ...). And on a farm, the farmer will provide a mineral

>lick to do more or less the same thing. The cow might grow slower or

>be smaller, but it will usually be in decent health. The fat it has will be

>probably yellow (from carotene) and will have a decent Omega 6 to 3 ratio.

>Cattle might do REALLY GOOD on some ideal diet, but they are

>designed to adapt to less than ideal conditions.

So are we, but it doesn't mean we are healthy on less than ideal conditions.

Why would cows be? I think I mentioned this in my post you are responding

to, but the beef steer that was the focus of this particular sub-thread are

slaughtered at a young age - FAR before degeneration might become readily

apparent. At least they have youth on their side and like children can

appear quite healthy when they are beginning a process of degeneration. How

does this affect their meat? I imagine it's basically of lower nutritional

quality than if they were on a high brix grass diet/high fertility soil.

>

>>But they selected the grasses in certain areas and ignored

>others. It wasn't

>>just grass, per se, they were looking for, but the RIGHT grass.

>

>(from another post) ... I agree, and ideally, cattle

>are pastured in BIG pastures where they can choose.

And big pastures that actually include high brix grass.

In very

>small pastures they churn the ground to mud anyway, which

>isn't good. Our grass around here isn't very good though,

>and there are a lot of cattle in people's backyards, and they

>are basically healthy (nice coats, lively step, alert) even though

>they are mostly ignored and used as grass cutters. My last

>steer was REALLY healthy, with fine strong bones etc., and he

>was fed off a small pasture and bales of hay by a farmer who

>didn't pay that much attention to soil quality. They are basically

>rather robust and can do well in a wide range of conditions, I think.

Why do you think cattle are different from the rest of the mammal kingdom in

that they can be *healthy* on a sub-par diet?

>

>-- Heidi Jean

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>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

>Maybe the young Angus needed a longer aging time to tenderize it.

>Funny though, one would assume it would be " young and tender " . Silly

>idea apparently. Can't assume anything!

I wish I could figure out the " tender " thing! Longhorn seem to be just

naturally more tender, but they are harder to find.

>Our source of raw milk is going to go away in another year of so and

>I am going to have to find a new source. I may have to switch to

>goats milk. I will really miss the raw butter, but I could get butter

>oil as a substitute and buy the organic butter at the store. Do you

>hink that is a wise idea? I'm planning ahead.

I've heard you can make butter from goat's milk. If you have ANY yard at all

and it is legal, getting a small goat (or 2, for company) will give you all the

milk,

cheese, butter etc. you can possibly use. It's a matter of milking them daily

....

>All this finding of food takes time and effort, especially when we

>don't have our own farm or ranch. I'm rather " famous " in my family

>for being picky about my food sources. Isn't it interesting I have

>noticed everyone loves to come over and eat at our house. As the kids

>say, NT rules!

I've got a reputation recently as a " gourmet " cook! Not " healthy " cook ... well,

it mostly

IS healthy, but just the fact it is real food seems to impress folks.

>One more thing. My 30 something son came over the other day and

>looked in the refrigerator. He said, " Mom, there aren't any labels in

>here! " It was a slight exaggeration, but I really laughed, because of

>his expression and the truth of the situation.

>Sheila

That is an interesting take! I've noticed a certain lack of " branding " at our

house ...

it feels good, actually, not to have all those words begging for attention.

-- Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

>>Wild ruminants eat good grass and poor grass, but basically they

>>do ok.

>

>What are you basing this on?That's like saying that humans eat a

>nutrient-dense diet or a nutrient-deficient diet, but basically they do OK.

>How can they be lumped together as equivalent? If that is the case, then why

>bother eating a nutrient-dense WAP diet? What are we all doing on this list

>if eating a nutrient-poor diet will allow us to be as " OK " as a

>nutrient-dense one?

>

>My point was that cows eat either a nutrient-dense diet or a

>nutrient-deficeint diet (which is what SAD is basically) and that their

>respective diets effects their health. Do you disagree?

I think it is BETTER to have a nutrient rich diet, obviously! But

humans (and animals) are basically pretty robust if the diet is

sort of " in the ballpark " of what they need. If a person eats

a diet of fruits, vegies, and meat ... even if it isn't IDEAL in

any sense ... that person will probably do pretty well, in the

sense that they won't get a lot of cavities, they won't have

a lot of indigestion, and they very likely won't get fat. This

shows up in epidemiological studies of Americans and Europeans

(most of whom are getting supermarket vegies, fruits, and meats).

Said person will do even better if the fruits, vegies, and meat

are high quality, and they take CLO, and the stuff was pesticide free etc.

But you can't compare that to the average SAD dieter ... who

lives off fructose soft drinks, lots of white wheat flour,

very few fruits or vegies, and meat that is mostly laced with

nitrates. The BULK of the American diet is now corn and wheat ...

neither of which is any human being designed for. Dogs and

cats are being fed the same way, and cows. In all cases,

humans, dogs, cats, and cattle ... they get overweight, get

diabetes, get arthritis. I don't think it would make any difference

if it was high-brix corn and wheat ... it would probably be somewhat

better if it was whole-grain corn and wheat (at least we would

eat less of it because it would be more filling, but in the case of

cattle, it is usually whole-grain corn).

Now, a person might be ok on a quinoa diet grown in good soil,

I don't know ... but in general, humans are just not designed for

the kind of diet most Americans eat, which I think is the bulk

of the problem. The lack of soil nutrients, pesticides, additives,

etc. are also a problem, but they are different problems is

all. I wouldn't put them in the same bucket. Animals and humans

have been living off suboptimal land for millenia, and can adapt

to that somewhat ... they haven't been living off SAD for millenia.

-- Heidi Jean

>So do most pastured cattle. There might be some

>>shortage of something in the grass ... say, selenium, in which case

>>a wild cattle will go lick a rock somewhere or find some pasture that

>>does have that element (like the inland humans traded for iodine

>>containing seafood ...). And on a farm, the farmer will provide a mineral

>>lick to do more or less the same thing. The cow might grow slower or

>>be smaller, but it will usually be in decent health. The fat it has will be

>>probably yellow (from carotene) and will have a decent Omega 6 to 3 ratio.

>>Cattle might do REALLY GOOD on some ideal diet, but they are

>>designed to adapt to less than ideal conditions.

>

>So are we, but it doesn't mean we are healthy on less than ideal conditions.

>Why would cows be? I think I mentioned this in my post you are responding

>to, but the beef steer that was the focus of this particular sub-thread are

>slaughtered at a young age - FAR before degeneration might become readily

>apparent. At least they have youth on their side and like children can

>appear quite healthy when they are beginning a process of degeneration. How

>does this affect their meat? I imagine it's basically of lower nutritional

>quality than if they were on a high brix grass diet/high fertility soil.

>

>

>

>>

>>>But they selected the grasses in certain areas and ignored

>>others. It wasn't

>>>just grass, per se, they were looking for, but the RIGHT grass.

>>

>>(from another post) ... I agree, and ideally, cattle

>>are pastured in BIG pastures where they can choose.

>

>And big pastures that actually include high brix grass.

>

>

>

>In very

>>small pastures they churn the ground to mud anyway, which

>>isn't good. Our grass around here isn't very good though,

>>and there are a lot of cattle in people's backyards, and they

>>are basically healthy (nice coats, lively step, alert) even though

>>they are mostly ignored and used as grass cutters. My last

>>steer was REALLY healthy, with fine strong bones etc., and he

>>was fed off a small pasture and bales of hay by a farmer who

>>didn't pay that much attention to soil quality. They are basically

>>rather robust and can do well in a wide range of conditions, I think.

>

>

>Why do you think cattle are different from the rest of the mammal kingdom in

>that they can be *healthy* on a sub-par diet?

>

[Guest guest]

Thanks, Suze.

I'm not really going to do myself in, just pointing out the negativity of Chi's

reply.

The point of my comment on organics was that, around here, for me anyway (and I

consider myself a pretty average sort of member of the general public)

'organics' doesn't JUST mean taking out the chemicals. It means trying (albeit

with our limited knowledge) to condition the soil to produce the healthiest,

chemical free produce we can. I am talking from a backyard, feed-the-family

viewpoint, though. I don't know about larger producers here.

I'll look into those references you offered.

Cheers,

Tas'.

Re: Organic Food: Malnutrition without Poison

>

>

>> OK - it's all hopeless - I'll go and shoot myself now and not have to

>> worry about it.

>

>Yeah, totally. Any solutions, Chi? All I'm hearing is criticisms. It's

>easy to stand at the sidelines and tell the people doing the work that

>they're doing it all wrong.

>

>Lynn S.

Head's up - it's not at_all hopeless ladies! No need for self-inflicted

violence :-)

Here are some materials with solutions:

" Science in Agriculture: Advanced Methods for Sustainable Farming " by Dr.

Arden Andersen, Ph.D. D.O, and agricultural consultant to farmers, farmer

consultants and several companies worldwide. Andersen discusses the Reams

method of soil testing and building fertile soil, and the Reams and Albrecth

stuff go hand in hand. Andersen was clearly influenced by both Albrecht and

Reams. I believe this book describes in detail what Chi is talking about,

and tells you how to build truly fertile soil that will produce

pest-resistant, extremely healthy high brix plants that produce abundant

yield.

" Nourishment Homegrown " by A.F. Beddoe, DDS. This book is a how-to on the

growing secrets of Carey Reams.

You could also call Acres USA for more related materials. I got mine from

Pike AgriLab in Strong, ME. They also sell the Albrecht Papers.

Suze Fisher

[Guest guest]

interesting. i really appreciate your insight on this, katja.

is there anything i should ask as to why he doesn't do things this

way so that he could offer 100% grass fed beef? i mean, i certainly

don't want to disrespect the man or insinuate that he doesn't know

what he's doing. kwim?

tia!

erica z

> > > >Hi,

> > > >I am sorry to barge in on this conversation. I am very

interested

> >though. I

> > > >have 5 acres that I let somebody graze their sheep every year

> >free. They

> > > >haven't been using it though as they sold their sheep. My

> >neighbor next to

> > > >me has horses that they breed and one pet cow and wanted to

use

> >it. I told

> > > >her when we move there I wanted to raise a cow and goat and

just

> >have them

> > > >graze so they be be grazed only. She said that her family

owns a

> >cattle

> > > >ranch in Nevada and that she grew up there and you can't raise

> >cattle

> > > >without extra grain that they would die. This has been

causing me

> >so much

> > > >confusion because I have been lurking a long time on this list

> >and I ageed

> > > >with most of what is said here but I thought if she grew up

with

> >cows etc

> > > >she must know. Could it possibly be true that some of these

> >people would not

> > > >know they can graze their animals and not feed grains etc? I

> >thought the

> > > >reason farmers or ranchers fed grain etc is because they

didn't

> >have enough

> > > >land or they wanted them fatter or heavier for a better

profit or

> >to get a

> > > >milder taste.

> > >

> > >

> > > you are correct sheila - frequently the western cattle ranches

> >have more

> > > animals than the land can support, which is to say, there's not

> >enough food

> > > without the grain. feeding the cows grain fatten them up faster

> >and get

> > > them to market quicker - 6-9 months on grain vs. 18+ months on

> >grass. the

> > > biggest factor though is that people are taught at ag schools

and

> >in the

> > > conventional farming community that cows without grains will

die.

> >to a

> > > large extent, it's just not their fault - they were taught the

> > > misconception by people that should have been trustworthy. a

long

> >time ag

> > > professor said to me recently that if i refused to use

ivermectin

> >(a

> > > chemical pesticide) on my cows (you give them a " shower " ,

> >essentially),

> > > that the maggots would eat all my calves alive. this man loved

his

> >animals

> > > and truly believed what he was saying! how many farmers did

this

> >man teach?

> > > i don't know, but that's what we're up against. that's why the

> >organic

> > > movement is so critical - it's the only thing that's proving to

> >people that

> > > these ag school professors are not necessarily the final word.

> >it's not

> > > perfect, but it's allowing people the resources and the

support to

> >research

> > > better ways of raising animals, and it's teaching them

> >alternatives to

> > > chemicals and grains.

> > >

> > > one codicil - science freak breeds such as holsteins may not

> >thrive without

> > > grains. they've been bred to be overlarge, and to produce more

> >milk than

> > > they should by nature, and in order to support that size body,

it

> >might be

> > > that their systems are dependent now on the grain. i suspect

this

> >is true,

> > > however, i haven't experimented with a holstein to find out for

> >sure.

> > > however, there's quite a revival going on in heritage breeds,

> >largely

> > > sponsored by the organic movement: heritage breed animals are

> >smarter,

> > > healthier, more resistant to pests and disease, etc, and they

> >thrive on

> > > their traditional diets: grass! (or in the case of pigs and

> >poultry,

> > > whatever they can get )

> > >

> > > anyway, just make sure you have a care about the breed you

select,

> >and

> > > you'll do just fine on grass! if you want some suggestions,

holler!

> > > -katja

> > >

> > >

> > > >SheilaN

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >and we don't use any grain at all. and i use my farm and all

my

> > > > > interactions with my neighbors as a way to teach them that

it

> >is, indeed,

> > > > > possible to raise up a cow without grain. but you have to

> >understand, some

> > > > > of these people even went to ag schools - they were taught

> >that you can't

> > > > > raise a cow without grain! have you never been taught

> >something in error,

> > > > > and then struggled to overcome the longheld but false

belief?

> >it's a

> > > > > process, and you can't damn a person for making the first

> >step, or there'd

> > > > > be no steps at all.

> > > > >

> > > > > -katja

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

[Guest guest]

--- Hello Chi:

See question below. Dennis

In , " soilfertility " <ynos@r...>

wrote:

>

> > >>>... because there is nothing in organic certification that

> > requires farmers to do anything to increase, maintain, or improve

> soil

> > fertility or the nutritional content of their foods.<<<

> >

> > I don't know about anyone else, but where I am (Tasmania,

> Australia) when you think/learn/talk about 'organics', it's not

only

> about removing the chemicals, it's the whole package of

> composting/soil-conditioning, fertilising with manure and seaweed

> extract, mulching, companion-planting, etc., etc., etc.,. I assume

> these are the things that improve the nutrition of the crop as well

> as reduce the pests. I don't know how anyone else grows 'organic'

> produce with only removing the chemicals.

> >

> > Cheers,

> > Tas'.

>

> How does companion planting improve the nutritional value of the

> crop? Mulching is done at the expense of the nutritional value of

> the crop. Composting organic matter grown on low soil fertility

> creates composted organic matter with little fertilizer value and

> is, at best, robbing to pay .

<><>><><><><><>Why would compost from low quality soil be low quality?

It wouldn't have to be. (What does Albrecht say about that?)Compost

of many kinds could be beneficial esp if it has microbial and fungal

diversity, which it should, and really " good " if it contains soil

protozoa. All of these recycle nutrients even though they

don't " make " missing elements. So missing elements would have to be

added. Good to hear from you again. Where does your farmer farm?

Dennis Kemnitz in KS

Manure, or what comes out

> one end, depends on the nutritional value of the food that went in

> the other end. Food from low soil fertility is turned into manure

> with low fertility value.

>

<><><<><><>I don't see that this " low fertility " manure has to make

only compost with " little fertilizer value " . Sure the macronutrients

would assay low but compost isn't really added for " fertilizer

value " .Dennis Kemnitz

Chi

[Guest guest]

--- In , " dkemnitz2000 "

> <><>><><><><><>Why would compost from low quality soil

> be low quality? It wouldn't have to be. (What does

> Albrecht say about that?)Compost of many kinds could be

> beneficial esp if it has microbial and fungal diversity, which

> it should, and really " good " if it contains soil protozoa. All

> of these recycle nutrients even though they don't " make "

> missing elements. So missing elements would have to be added.

> Good to hear from you again. Where does your farmer farm?

Hi Dennis:

Organic matter varies in its value as fertilizer. Organic matter

from low soil fertility will have a poorer ratio of protein to

carbohydrate content, a less beneficial microbe content and will

contribute less to the CEC of the soil than organic matter from high

soil fertility.

My farmer is located in Durham, Ontario.

>

>

> > Manure, or what comes out one end, depends on the

> > nutritional value of the food that went in the other end.

> > Food from low soil fertility is turned into manure

> > with low fertility value.

> <><><<><><>I don't see that this " low fertility " manure

> has to make only compost with " little fertilizer value " .

> Sure the macronutrients would assay low but compost

> isn't really added for " fertilizer value " .

Compost is added to improve soil fertility. Fertilizer is added to

improve soil fertility. If you aren't trying to improve soil

fertility, why are you adding compost? The Pottenger Cat study

provided a great example of the difference in similar organic matter

providing dramatically different fertilizer values.

Chi

[Guest guest]

> Fertilizer is added to

> improve soil fertility.

> Chi

Hi Chi,

Wouldn't that would depend on the nature of the fertilizer? For

example, higher or high nitrogen fertilizer was never intended to

improve soil fertility. It was used to bypass the soil with its

symbiotic microorganisms and artificially forcefeed the plant. I

think there are studies showing that using higher nitrogen

fertilizer will drastically shift the balance of the good vs. bad

microorganisms thereby reducing soil fertility. Without competition,

the disease causing organisms will begin to dominate. I agree with

the saying " feed the soil and the soil will feed the plant " .

Darrell

[Guest guest]

> Wouldn't that would depend on the nature of the fertilizer? For

> example, higher or high nitrogen fertilizer was never intended to

> improve soil fertility. It was used to bypass the soil with its

> symbiotic microorganisms and artificially force feed the plant.

One of the problems with artificial fertilizers is that they degrade the organic

matter in the soil.

The high levels of soluble compounds from fertilizers cause a bloom of soil

micro-organisms.

The soil organisms reproduce rapidly and use the carbon and nutrients bound in

humus in the soil at a higher rate than would occur

naturally.

This degrades the soil structure greatly.

Bruce

[Guest guest]

>

> > Fertilizer is added to

> > improve soil fertility.

>

> > Chi

> Wouldn't that would depend on the nature of the fertilizer?

Hi Darrell:

Fertilizer is something added to soil to improve soil fertility. The

type of fertilizer being added is chosen to meet a certain goal.

When the goal is a higher yield, certain ratios of N,P,K are chosen

to meet that goal which, yes, may terribly upset the balance of the

soil. It was interesting to me to learn from both Albrecht and

Voison, that N,P,K fertilizer can be used to grow more nutritious

food, depending, of course, on the relative ratios and amounts used,

and what else the soil may need added to attain the goal of a more

nutritious crop.

It is my opinion, that since there is plenty of nitrogen in the air

and microbes in soil can fix nitrogen even in the absense of

legumes, when the goal of a high soil fertility is reached, there

should be no need to add nitrogen to the soil by any means other

than as the part that it is of compost.

Chi

[Guest guest]

--- Dennis posting near the bottom. You know, the Kansan. We're

different out here!

In , " soilfertility " <ynos@r...>

wrote:

>

> >

> > > Fertilizer is added to

> > > improve soil fertility.

> >

> > > Chi

>

> > Wouldn't that would depend on the nature of the fertilizer?

>

> Hi Darrell:

> Fertilizer is something added to soil to improve soil fertility.

The

> type of fertilizer being added is chosen to meet a certain goal.

> When the goal is a higher yield, certain ratios of N,P,K are chosen

> to meet that goal which, yes, may terribly upset the balance of the

> soil. It was interesting to me to learn from both Albrecht and

> Voison, that N,P,K fertilizer can be used to grow more nutritious

> food, depending, of course, on the relative ratios and amounts

used,

> and what else the soil may need added to attain the goal of a more

> nutritious crop.

> It is my opinion, that since there is plenty of nitrogen in the air

> and microbes in soil can fix nitrogen even in the absense of

> legumes,

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Hello Chi, The toxic chemicals used on US

soils the last 50 years have nearly killed the entire soil food web,

therefore bacteria,fungi(not funguy), protozoa,microarthropods,

beneficial nematodes,earthworms etc are all nearly non-existent.

(The soil is essentially sterile where toxic chemicals have been

used.) These are the nutrient re-cyclers.And convert nitrogen from

air and keep nitrogen from leaching into the ground water. And much

more. A teaspoon of productive soil generally contains between 100

million and 1 billion bacteria per Soil Biology Primer published by

the Soil and Water Conservation Society(or visit www.swcs.org). Also

see www.soilfoodweb.com for much more of this interesting info. Dr.

Elaine Ingham at soilfoodweb.com has specifications for healthy

soils. Dennis Kemnitz

when the goal of a high soil fertility is reached, there

> should be no need to add nitrogen to the soil by any means other

> than as the part that it is of compost.

> Chi

[Guest guest]

--- In , " soilfertility " <ynos@r...>

wrote:

> --- In , " dkemnitz2000 "

> > <><>><><><><><>Why would compost from low quality soil

> > be low quality? It wouldn't have to be. (What does

> > Albrecht say about that?)Compost of many kinds could be

> > beneficial esp if it has microbial and fungal diversity, which

> > it should, and really " good " if it contains soil protozoa. All

> > of these recycle nutrients even though they don't " make "

> > missing elements. So missing elements would have to be added.

> > Good to hear from you again. Where does your farmer farm?

>

> Hi Dennis:

> Organic matter varies in its value as fertilizer. Organic matter

> from low soil fertility will have a poorer ratio of protein to

> carbohydrate content, a less beneficial microbe content and will

> contribute less to the CEC of the soil than organic matter from

high

> soil fertility.

> My farmer is located in Durham, Ontario.

>

> >

> >

>

> > > Manure, or what comes out one end, depends on the

> > > nutritional value of the food that went in the other end.

> > > Food from low soil fertility is turned into manure

> > > with low fertility value.

>

> > <><><<><><>I don't see that this " low fertility " manure

> > has to make only compost with " little fertilizer value " .

> > Sure the macronutrients would assay low but compost

> > isn't really added for " fertilizer value " .

>

> Compost is added to improve soil fertility. Fertilizer is added to

> improve soil fertility. If you aren't trying to improve soil

> fertility, why are you adding compost?

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX Hello Chi, I don't think I answered this one yet.

Compost is added for its bio-diversity. For many microbes and fungi

both total and active amounts. The " higher " organisms in the soil

then utilize them to make nutrients available for the plant in a

timely manner. Compost therefore aerates the soil cause the aerobes

allow roots to penetrate far deeper than in anaerobic compacted soils.

Dennis Kemnitz

The Pottenger Cat study

> provided a great example of the difference in similar organic

matter

> providing dramatically different fertilizer values.

>

> Chi

[Guest guest]

--

Hello Chi, Lynn and Chris: Interesting comments. Dennis

- In , " soilfertility " <ynos@r...>

wrote:

>

> > > OK - it's all hopeless - I'll go and shoot myself now and not

> have to

> > > worry about it.

> > Yeah, totally. Any solutions, Chi? All I'm hearing

> > is criticisms. It's easy to stand at the sidelines and

> > tell the people doing the work that

> > they're doing it all wrong.

>

> This reply is for both Lynn and Chris:

> Even in reading Albrecht, I find there is no easy way or " Albrecht

> method " to turn soil that produces food of low nutritional value

> into soil that produces food of high nutritional value. What

> Albrecht was pointing out in his papers, time after time, was that

> agriculture had the wrong point of view, in that it looked at crops

> from the point of view of bulk yield only, with nutritional yield

> being virtually ignored. Science seems to operate from a point of

> view, which, in this case is " What do we need to do to produce more

> food per acre to feed more people on the planet. " For the good of

> our species, and the good of all other species on this planet,

> agricultural science, imo, needs to throw way that point of view

and

> adopt another point of view, which is, " What do we need to do to

> maximize the nutritional value of the food produced per acre to

that

> we can better nourish all the people on the planet. "

> What Albrecht did recognize were the characteristics of soil of

both

> high and low or unbalanced soil fertility. As he explained it,

> agricultural science had a better understanding of the relationship

> of the positive ions, or cations, to each other than of the

> relationship of the negative ions, or anions, to eath other. A soil

> test should identify the CEC (Cation Exchange Capacity), which is

> the ability of the soil to hold cations available to the plant but

> insoluble in water so they can't be washed away in the rain.

XXXXXXXXXXXXx BTW Chi, One more time, bacteria utilize C and N in

healthy soils and

maintain desirable soil pH.Dennis Kemnitz

It

> should also give you the soil ph and the base saturation

percentage.

> The base saturation percentages are the various percentages of the

> major cations available in the soil, including calcium, magnesium,

> potassium, hydrogen and maybe sodium. The desirable percentages are

> about 70% for calcium, 10% for magnesium, 2 to 5% for potassium.

> Potassium is the " P " in NPK fertilizer. The desirable ph is about

> 6.2, an acid soil. Remembering that soil tests test for available

> minerals in the soil, not for minerals in the soil (that is a

> critical difference), the problem is that if you do soil tests with

> several labs, you may get differing results from all of them. Also,

> the mineral availability changes during the year, so the results

can

> change depending on when you do the test.

> Of course on the anion side you will see available nitrogen and

> phosphorus. And what does all this tell you? At best I think it

> gives you a " ballpark " idea of where your soil is. If the numbers

> aren't right, what do you do about it? If calcium is low, you can

> add a calcium containing mineral such as calcitic limestone. The

> problem with adding limestone is apparently not all soil

consultants

> who follow the " Albrecht method " apparently ever bothered to read

> Albrecht. They seem to recommend the way to add limestone is to use

> the finest particle size you can get so that it is highly available

> and has the " fastest " reaction. Too bad they don't read the

> scientific test reported by Albrecht in volume I that compared the

> use of 10 mesh and 100 mesh limestone. They usually recommend

around

> 200 mesh, sigh.

> It may seem relatively easy to add something that is low in your

> soil test, but what do you do when something is too high in your

> soil test? That may be a more difficult problem not as easily

> solved. Also, if you calcium is low, other factors in the soil test

> determine what type of lime would be best for your soil.

> What is most interesting about all the above, is that it really

only

> matters in soils with low CECs, Albrecht points out good nutritious

> crops can be produced in high CEC soils with the cations not being

> in the above suggested quantities. " Why? " , you may ask, because the

> soil only needs to have enough available minerals to supply the

> crop, and a high CEC soil has an easier time doing that than a low

> CEC soil. To understand this you might consider a small coffee cup

> which has enough coffee, cream and sugar in it to meet your needs.

> If it had enough to meet your needs in the small cup, you can pour

> it into an extra-large cup and it will still meet your needs, but

> the extra-large cup may only be half full. The small cup is like

the

> low CEC soil and the extra-large cup is like the high CEC soil. The

> extra air in the bigger cup is like hydrogen in soil, the air is a

> non-nutrient for you and hydrogen in the soil is a non-nutrient for

> a plant.

> One of the problems, as I see it, is that we know the

> characteristics of a good soil so when we see something in good

soil

> we think it created the good soil instead of realizing what we see

> is the product of a good soil. Both earthworms and microbes fit

this

> category so we add earthworms and microbes to poor soil expecting

to

> make it good. What we need to do is to learn to create soil that

> creates a desirable microbe population instead of treating the

> symptom.

> How do I think we should be discovering how to create good soil?

> That answer lies in the chapter by Albrecht in Weston

> Price's book, in which Albrecht asks " What is soil fertility? " or

> words close to that, I am not looking it up for an exact quote.

XXXXXXXXXXXXx Hello Chi, I'm not either any time soon. If you don't

have it (healthy soil food web) you have to import from the fence row

or timber or someplace not sprayed with 'icides. And since the soil

farmed the toxic chemical way has destroyed the soil food web change

residue management, farming method, stop spraying chemicals, make and

spread compost and eat weeds. Cause they sure have adapted to the

environment and you'll have plenty. I still wonder how the Pawnee

had extra corn when they must have planted in spring and came back in

fall to a corn patch of some kind to harvest. As I stated in another

post the Pawnee left the KS area in summer and winter which seems

like a great thing to do. I did some Brix testing on my OP corn and

surrounding weeds today(which I can tell by naked eye are healthier

than the cultivated crop). Although it's been raining for two weeks

here so the crop isn't really cultivated. And the $20 weeder isn't

ready to " cultivate " 30 inch rows cause the last time it was used on

38 " rows (non-hybrid plants BTW). Can't think of a closer here so,

Regards, Dennis Kemnitz

Then

> he answers and that, to me, is the direction in which we should

> direct our science to discover how to create high soil fertility

> nature's way, probably the only way that will work satisfactorily.

> To think we can do better than nature or work around nature is to

> fool no one but ourselves.

>

XXXXXXXXXX Chi, You must be a Christian. That's the way God does

it.Dennis Kemnitz

Chi

[Guest guest]

Phosphorus is the " P " . Potassium is the " K " ...

--- In , " soilfertility " <ynos@r...>

wrote:

> Potassium is the " P " in NPK fertilizer. The desirable ph is about