Guest guest Posted July 8, 2004 Report Share Posted July 8, 2004 So, how do you determine high-quality produce? Do you use brix like Suze, or is it a taste thing? I'd love to hear how you personally determine the quality of the produce you eat. TIA, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 8, 2004 Report Share Posted July 8, 2004 > So, how do you determine high-quality produce? > Do you use brix like Suze, or is it a taste thing? > I'd love to hear how you personally determine the > quality of the produce you eat. Hi : A few years ago I changed my diet from mainly organic vegetetables, fruit and meat, all eaten raw, to primarily bread, milk and cheese, with the milk and cheese being raw. None of the grain in the bread is hybrid. The cows are a low production dual purpose variety that are fed grass with no grain supplements whatever. In the winter they have a free choice of certain leaves which are provided as a mineral supplement. They only take the leaves when on winter hay, which, of course, must have less nutritional value than when green and growing in the field. Understanding what I do now about food production makes the experience of buying produce, organic or otherwise, in a store difficult. I find it hard to spend money on poor tasting produce, some of which is rotting right in the store. A fruit and vegetable diet may be bland, but it wasn't intended to be. Many years ago I purchased a refractometer to see what I could learn from that after reading Beddoe's book, " Nutrition Home Grown. " What the refractometer revealed was as Beddoe had suggested, the overall quality of the food I tested, again organic or otherwise, was disappointing. As much as a help as a refractometer is, its failing is that it is not a way to judge the nutritional value of hybrids compared to open pollinated. There, the higher reading of the hybrid does not necessarily mean higher nutrition value. I think Beddoe mentions this with respect to hybrid corn. What advice would I give others to help them determine where they buy their food and how to determine its nutritional value? If you must buy from a store, good luck, you have little control of even what information you can get about the origin of the food they sell. If, however, you are able to buy direct from a farmer, find one who doesn't grow hybrids. If you can't find one, ask the farmer you are buying from to please grow some non-hybrid produce that you are willing to pay more for. If you are really interested in the farmer's soil's abliity to produce nutritious food, ask to see a copy of a recent soil test. If he doesn't have one, see if he will do one if you pay for it. If he has animals, see if they are high production or not. If they are high production, dairy cows for instance, ask if he would consider getting a lower production cow for you (and maybe others) to get your dairy products from. Tell him you will pay more for the milk and, if necessary, help pay for the cow or transport of the cow to his farm. To do these things it might be best to do this a part of a small group of consumers all interested in obtaining higher nutritional quality food and willing to pay for it. By the way, if the farmer doesn't like your asking these types of questions, find another farmer, quickly. Any farmer truly interested in nutrition should appreciate intelligent questions from knowledgeable consumers who are prepared to pay to enable the farmer to increase the nutritional value of the food he produces. Since farmers aren't currently paid for nutrition as opposed to yield, farmers who truly want to produce nutrition are forced to take a drop in income to do it. That is hardly fair. When I started buying from my current farmer, I asked him to raise his prices. Chi 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 9:37:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time, s.fisher22@... writes: > Maybe I should ask them if the item tested is > hybrid or open pollinated. Another column to add to my database! > Oh, definitely. Remember that post way back I made about hybrids and cobalt? The nutrition difference between hybrid and open-pollinated corn is enormous. Cobalt absorption is basically completely inhibited, and many other minerals are significantly inhibited. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 9, 2004 Report Share Posted July 9, 2004 > Re: Question for Chi > >Many years ago I purchased a refractometer to see what I could learn >from that after reading Beddoe's book, " Nutrition Home Grown. " What >the refractometer revealed was as Beddoe had suggested, the overall >quality of the food I tested, again organic or otherwise, was >disappointing. As much as a help as a refractometer is, its failing >is that it is not a way to judge the nutritional value of hybrids >compared to open pollinated. There, the higher reading of the hybrid >does not necessarily mean higher nutrition value. I think Beddoe >mentions this with respect to hybrid corn. Chi, why is that? Because hybrids are bred for higher starch/sugar content? I haven't tested any supermarket produce yet, as I rarely buy it. I'm testing local farm stuff. Maybe I should ask them if the item tested is hybrid or open pollinated. Another column to add to my database! 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 > Chi, why is that? Because hybrids are bred for higher > starch/sugar content? Hi Suze: It's probably safe to assume all hybrids were created for economic benefit at the expense of nutritional benefit. Economic benefit in agriculture is yield. In soil where an open pollintated crop fails, a hybrid will still produce a crop, while showing more vigor and better insect and disease resistance. There is a reason for this, of course. The hybrid demands less from the soil because it produces less nutritional value, so it thrives where the open pollinated fails. Albrecht explains the hybrid corn has had the gene that controls the sugar content altered to produce more sugar while, at the same time, the protein content goes down. I say that is guaranteed malnutrition however it is grown. If you want your corn to be other than candy nutritional value, don't eat hybrid corn. Even on a field of high soil fertility, sececting a crop for higher yield per acre is done at the cost of total nutritional value per acre, including grass in pastures. Chi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 9, 2004 Report Share Posted July 9, 2004 > Re: Re: Question for Chi > > >In a message dated 7/8/04 9:37:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time, >s.fisher22@... writes: > > >> Maybe I should ask them if the item tested is >> hybrid or open pollinated. Another column to add to my database! >> > >Oh, definitely. Remember that post way back I made about hybrids >and cobalt? No, I don't remembet that. > The nutrition difference between hybrid and open-pollinated corn is >enormous. Cobalt absorption is basically completely inhibited, >and many other >minerals are significantly inhibited. The last few years I was in the habit of asking local farmers/gardeners if their plants/animals were hybrid or heirloom breeds, but I haven't asked any this year. Of course I just started going to the farmers market a few weeks ago - they really didn't have many edibles till then. I'll definitely start posing that question again. 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 13, 2004 Report Share Posted July 13, 2004 There have been some instances of one soil based crop pest surviving in small numbers to feed on the roots of a different rotated crop planted there the next season. To a larger extent the same thing happens with bacteria and antibiotics. Sooner or later, small numbers of a pest find a way to survive under different conditions. Darrell --- In , " Pugh " <gramlin@e...> wrote: > I'm enjoying all the discussion about hybrids vs heirlooms and soil fertility but I have a few questions. > > 1. Why do you say that crop rotation is bad? I'm thinking of the kind of rotation where they grow beans or clover (to put nitrogen back into the soil). > > (I'm also thinking about my own little veggie garden where they say it's good to rotate things in case there are disease organisms lurking). > > 2. Why is mulch bad? Is it because it is taking nitrogen while it decomposes, or some other reason? > > and the K9's Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2004 Report Share Posted July 13, 2004 --- In , " Pugh " <gramlin@e...> wrote: > 1. Why do you say that crop rotation is bad? > I'm thinking of the kind of rotation where they grow beans > or clover (to put nitrogen back into the soil). > (I'm also thinking about my own little veggie garden > where they say it's good to rotate things in case there > are disease organisms lurking). > 2. Why is mulch bad? Is it because it is taking > nitrogen while it decomposes, or some other reason? > Hi : I don't say crop rotation is bad, I say crop rotation is bad for your soil fertility. Albrecht, the soil scientist, that I have studied reports on an experiment done at his university that compared various crop rotations with growing the same crop year after year in the same field. The time period was about 65 years. They found soil fertility declined more under crop rotation that it did under continuous cropping. Both lowered soil fertility but rotation lowered it more. So to say crop rotation is good for the soil is nonsense. In conditions of low soil fertility crop rotations helps farmers grow crops with less danger from insects or diseases from the previous year. Any farmer who does this has no interest in nutrition. The insects and diseases are symptoms of low soil fertility. The farmer should not be trying to avoid them using crop rotation which, if anything, further lowers the nutritional value of the crop from year to year, he should be restoring the soil fertility which would increase the nutritional value of the crop and, at the same time, protect the plant from insects and disease. I wouldn't say mulching is bad. What I would say is mulching with a long lasting mulch of low nutritional value is bad. The microbes that decompose the mulch are forced to get the nutrition they need from the soil. This is done at the expense of the plants growing there thus reducing their nutritional value. Chi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2004 Report Share Posted July 13, 2004 > > > 1. Why do you say that crop rotation is bad? > > I'm thinking of the kind of rotation where they grow beans > > or clover (to put nitrogen back into the soil). > > (I'm also thinking about my own little veggie garden > > where they say it's good to rotate things in case there > > are disease organisms lurking). > > 2. Why is mulch bad? Is it because it is taking > > nitrogen while it decomposes, or some other reason? > > > Hi : > I don't say crop rotation is bad, I say crop rotation is bad for > your soil fertility. Albrecht, the soil scientist, that I > have studied reports on an experiment done at his university that > compared various crop rotations with growing the same crop year > after year in the same field. The time period was about 65 years. > They found soil fertility declined more under crop rotation that it > did under continuous cropping. Both lowered soil fertility but > rotation lowered it more. So to say crop rotation is good for the > soil is nonsense. In conditions of low soil fertility crop rotations > helps farmers grow crops with less danger from insects or diseases > from the previous year. Any farmer who does this has no interest in > nutrition. The insects and diseases are symptoms of low soil > fertility. The farmer should not be trying to avoid them using crop > rotation which, if anything, further lowers the nutritional value of > the crop from year to year, he should be restoring the soil > fertility which would increase the nutritional value of the crop > and, at the same time, protect the plant from insects and disease. > I wouldn't say mulching is bad. What I would say is mulching with a > long lasting mulch of low nutritional value is bad. XXXXXX Hello Chi, What low nutritional mulch could that be? Something w/o carbon,hydrogen,nitrogen,..Something like solids from a waste treatment plant? Something containing clopyralid or other 'icide residues? Just this year I started mulching with coarse wood chips and they are great for plants which prefer fungal dominated soils. I envision it as moving the mulch from the forest floor out into the field. I plan to use very minimum tillage so fungi, earthworms, protozoa, microarthropods, arthropods, sowbugs, springtails,etc can function naturally. Dennis Kemnitz The microbes > that decompose the mulch are forced to get the nutrition they need > from the soil. If you have 25000 bacterial species per spoonful of soil chances are very good those microbes (and fungi present too) will recycle most any mulch available on an organic farm in a timely manner to the plant roots. Protozoa and other soil " bugs " are needed too.........MY Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2004 Report Share Posted July 13, 2004 > XXXXXX Hello Chi, What low nutritional mulch could that be? Hi Dennis: Wood chips, for instance. > Something w/o carbon,hydrogen,nitrogen,..Something like solids > from a waste treatment plant? Something containing clopyralid > or other 'icide residues? Just this year I started mulching > with coarse wood chips and they are great for plants which > prefer fungal dominated soils. I envision it as moving the > mulch from the forest floor out into the field. I plan to > use very minimum tillage so fungi, earthworms, protozoa, > microarthropods, arthropods, sowbugs, springtails,etc can > function naturally. You can tell how poor your mulch is in nutritional value by how long it lasts. The longer it lasts the poorer it is in nutritional value it is and the more nutrition the microbes decomposing it will take from the soil at the expense of the nutritional value of the plants growing there. Forests are a sign of low soil fertility, btw. > MY Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2004 Report Share Posted July 13, 2004 > > > XXXXXX Hello Chi, What low nutritional mulch could that be? > > Hi Dennis: > Wood chips, for instance. > > > Something w/o carbon,hydrogen,nitrogen,..Something like solids > > from a waste treatment plant? Something containing clopyralid > > or other 'icide residues? Just this year I started mulching > > with coarse wood chips and they are great for plants which > > prefer fungal dominated soils. I envision it as moving the > > mulch from the forest floor out into the field. I plan to > > use very minimum tillage so fungi, earthworms, protozoa, > > microarthropods, arthropods, sowbugs, springtails,etc can > > function naturally. > > You can tell how poor your mulch is in nutritional value by how long > it lasts. The longer it lasts the poorer it is in nutritional value > it is and the more nutrition the microbes decomposing it will take > from the soil at the expense of the nutritional value of the plants > growing there. > Forests are a sign of low soil fertility, btw. > > > MY Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 2004 Report Share Posted July 14, 2004 > XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Hello Chi, I hate to sound like a teenager > BUT I'm sure man has discovered some " things " since 1903. > I haven't read any of Albrecht though. I'll have to get his > specs on hi and lo fertility soils initially. And see > why he would consider forests lo fertility. That makes > no sense to me. What about all the nutrients which deposit in > the forest during floods ? Forests are in lowlands > right? Dennis Kemnitz Hi Dennis: Interestingly, all of Albrecht's work was done after 1903. Albrecht describes forests as nature's last stand against the erosion of soil fertility. Forests also grow on mountains which are seldom flooded. In case of that happening I suggest having an ark close by. If you will read Albrecht, you will learn how rain both first constructs soil fetility but later destroys it. Soil construction and destruction are both normal in nature. Since the soil fertility controls the life, the life present is a symptom of the soil fertility. Forests are a symptom of low soil fertility, with the type of tree giving a further indication of the soil fertility. Chi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 15, 2004 Report Share Posted July 15, 2004 >If you will read Albrecht, you will learn how rain both first >constructs soil fetility but later destroys it. Soil construction >and destruction are both normal in nature. Since the soil fertility >controls the life, the life present is a symptom of the soil >fertility. Forests are a symptom of low soil fertility, with the >type of tree giving a further indication of the soil fertility. >Chi I'd really have to disagree with that ... a lot of the areas of grasslands were maintained that way by the Native Americans, who set fires to get rid of the trees. In the Northwest, trees will grow ANYWHERE you don't cut them down, including in the very barren and rocky areas. There is a cycle, the alders come first (fixing the nitrogen) and then the cedars, and the cedars shade everyone else out. Grass grows where there used to be a lake, usually, or where there was a fire. The Native Americans wanted more deer and buffalo, so they did tend to set fires (and there were more natural fires too). From what I've read of Albrecht, he was way ahead of his time but a lot of what he said was intuitive or philisophical, not based on a lot of science. He also said the reason the Pilgrims starved was because the East coast was barren nutritionally ... which is just not what happened, they starved because they had no idea how to live off the land, even living next to an ocean chock full of fish and forests full of game. -- Heidi Jean Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 15, 2004 Report Share Posted July 15, 2004 > From what I've read of Albrecht, he was way ahead of > his time but a lot of what he said was intuitive or > philisophical, not based on a lot of science. All the evidence that I present from Albrecht is based on repeatable scientific experiments. Albrecht may have been ahead of his time when he was alive and he still is today. > He also said the reason the Pilgrims starved > was because the East coast was barren nutritionally ... In what paper in what volume did he say that? Chi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 15, 2004 Report Share Posted July 15, 2004 >> He also said the reason the Pilgrims starved >> was because the East coast was barren nutritionally ... > >In what paper in what volume did he say that? > >Chi In the Price book there is an Albrecht chapter ... I agree that a lot of what he has to say has been validated, and in fact is common practice. Before him, the normal farming methods were to go to a place, farm it to death, then move on. The whole process of farming by it's nature (taking away the plants and animals that grow in a place, thus removing the minerals etc. that would normally recycle) is destructive to soil. But there has been SO much work since that era that is much more quantitative (and granted I haven't read volumes of work by him, just the chapter in Price). But in that chapter his main thrust seemed to be getting high-protein wheat to feed the troops and help the war effort, and was in defense of the whole idea of amending the soil. Nowadays it seems every home gardener amends the soil, and the limiting factor in growing plants is just water availability. So I'm probably missing something obvious ... -- Heidi Jean Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 15, 2004 Report Share Posted July 15, 2004 > But there has been SO much work since that era that > is much more quantitative (and granted I haven't read > volumes of work by him, just the chapter in Price). Most of the papers in the four volumes of " The Albrecht Papers " were published after " Nutrition and Physical Degeneration " . You are right, all the work since that era is geared towards quantitative results at the expense of nutrition, of course. > Nowadays it seems every home gardener amends the soil, > and the limiting factor in growing plants is just > water availability. > > So I'm probably missing something obvious ... Every home gardener may amend the soil, but that doesn't mean they have any idea of what they are doing or any idea of the consequences of what they are doing. To say the limiting factor in growing plants is just water availability is nonsense. Who ever told you that? Chi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 2004 Report Share Posted July 16, 2004 ---Water availability is a problem due to compaction of soil in which anaerobes produce volatile organic acids moving nutrients from soil into air and lowering pH which kills plant roots at the ends. See www.soilfoodweb.com Dennis Kemnitz In , Heidi Schuppenhauer <heidis@t...> wrote: > > >> He also said the reason the Pilgrims starved > >> was because the East coast was barren nutritionally ... > > > >In what paper in what volume did he say that? > > > >Chi > > In the Price book there is an Albrecht chapter ... I agree that > a lot of what he has to say has been validated, and in fact is > common practice. Before him, the normal farming methods > were to go to a place, farm it to death, then move on. The > whole process of farming by it's nature (taking away the plants > and animals that grow in a place, thus removing the minerals > etc. that would normally recycle) is destructive to soil. But there > has been SO much work since that era that is much more > quantitative (and granted I haven't read volumes of work > by him, just the chapter in Price). But in that chapter his main > thrust seemed to be getting high-protein wheat to feed the > troops and help the war effort, and was in defense of the > whole idea of amending the soil. Nowadays it seems every > home gardener amends the soil, and the limiting factor in > growing plants is just water availability. > > So I'm probably missing something obvious ... > > -- Heidi Jean Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 2004 Report Share Posted July 16, 2004 >Every home gardener may amend the soil, but that doesn't mean they >have any idea of what they are doing or any idea of the consequences >of what they are doing. They know about as much as the average native knew about choosing what fruit to eat ... they know what tastes good, and what grows good! I've been amazed at the results some home gardeners get. They have the advantage that they don't have to worry about cost competitiveness. >To say the limiting factor in growing plants is just water >availability is nonsense. Who ever told you that? Well, not to get into discussions about " high nutrition " food (which I can neither prove nor disprove) ... there are lots of folks happily growing all kinds of products in JUST water ... high THC marijuana grows nicely in underground basements (higher in THC than the aboveground variety, I don't know if that means high brix or not!). And the Israelis pumped water into the desert and voila! nice crops. Ditto in California and Eastern Washington. Some areas had good soil, probably, because it was desert area, but any place with some sun and some water can grow plants, and with the right stuff put in the soil, it can grow healthy plants. Getting healthy plants to grow at high concentrations, for a saleable price, or growing X crop in Y area, or getting to some ideal of organicness etc. might be another issue. But really, we have lousy soil, haven't done much to it, and many plants do just fine (i.e. they taste good, they don't get bugs much, and the plant is healthy). To me the trick has always been growing what wants to grow where you live ... tomatoes don't do well here, the season is too short so they don't get to ripen. Napa cabbage rotted when I grew it, but the collards next to it were 3 feet across and gorgeous. And yeah, I have no way of knowing if they are " high nutrient " collards by someone's definition but they taste darn good, and a lot better than store collards and they haven't had pesticide on them. I tend to think that the human taste buds are pretty developed for finding " good " food ... and produce that tastes better probably is healthier (otherwise how did all those natives survive before the invention of Brix meters?). -- Heidi Jean 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.