Re: Organic and the Environment

[Guest guest]

--- Allan Balliett wrote:

>

> As far as Suze'suestion about nutritionally dense

> food and too many

> nutrients leaving the farm, that's not really the

> case in biological

> agriculture - and, as far as I know, only biological

> agriculture

> (which includes ecog agriculture and biodynamics

> produces

> nutritionally dense foods.

Allan,

How do you know this? Or are you assuming based on

certain philosophical presuppositions that this is

true?

What is out about biodynamics or eco-agriculture that

*assures* us of nutritionally dense foods in a

verifiable manner?

Is the " organic movement " considered a part of

biological agricultural? If so how do you account for

the conventional analyzes which suggest that organic

food at *best* is only *slightly* more nutritious than

conventional food? Many of the brix folks with their

approach have said much the same thing.

<snip>

> It is said that a plant on living soil never needs a

> nitrogen

> supplementation: all the nitrogen necessary for good

> plant growth can

> come from the atmosphere, via the metabolism of the

> living soil.

It is also said that plants on living soil don't rot.

All this seems to go hand and hand.

Jerry Brunnetti said at the recent WAPF conference

that proper (living) soil leads to a rise in sugars

in the plant which leads to an uptake of calcium which

leads to an uptake of all other necessary minerals

making for a healthy plant *impervious* to rot.

He said it twice.

Sounds a lot like the brixf olks although from a

conversation I overheard while working the WAPF table

at the conference Mr. Brunetti is not high on the

concept of brix. That doesn't make sense to me if I

understand the Reams/Albrecht approach correctly.

But I plan on getting the tape of his lecture from the

conference just to make sure I understood him

correctly *at the conference* before following up with

him on the matter.

I promise I wasn't eavesdropping, lol!, its just that

Mr. Brunetti was speaking rather loudly.

Living soils, high sugar/high minerals, impervious to

rot, nutrient density - other than being impervious to

rot - which can be objectively seen but only after the

fact - how can we *know* that food is nutrient dense,

and not just take someone's word for it or assume

their *philosophy* is correct or endlessly experiment

on our own health to determine the truth of the matter?

=====

Kick the Habit: Don't Vote!

http://tinyurl.com/439vl

Eat fat, get thin... lift big, get small.

" They told just the same,

That just because a tyrant has the might

By force of arms to murder men downright

And burn down house and home and leave all flat

They call the man a captain, just for that.

But since an outlaw with his little band

Cannot bring half such mischief on the land

Or be the cause of so much harm and grief,

He only earns the title of a thief. "

--Geoffrey Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

--- Suze Fisher <s.fisher22@...> wrote:

> >Eden was one of the few national packagers that

> stood up against the

> >USDA's desire to allow sewer sludge, GMOs and

> irradiation in

> >orgaNICALLY certified products.

>

> Good 'ol USDA putting our tax dollars to work for

> us. Sheesh....

>

One of the great tragedies of the " organic movement "

is that it was folks within this paradigm who

approached the federal gov't about establishing

*national* standards. Anyone who knew *anything* about

economics knew they were courting a disaster or at

least SHOULD have known, inviting the camel all the

way into the tent as it were.

And it just amazes me that people don't get this, that

they believe there are either no laws governing

economics or that somehow they or their movement is

impervious to such laws. And then they cry foul when

the gov't issues these watered down standards, which

are the direct result of LOTS of BIG MONEY that got

involved at the DIRECT invite of the organic movement.

=====

Kick the Habit: Don't Vote!

http://tinyurl.com/439vl

Eat fat, get thin... lift big, get small.

" They told just the same,

That just because a tyrant has the might

By force of arms to murder men downright

And burn down house and home and leave all flat

They call the man a captain, just for that.

But since an outlaw with his little band

Cannot bring half such mischief on the land

Or be the cause of so much harm and grief,

He only earns the title of a thief. "

--Geoffrey Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

> RE: Organic and the Environment

>

>

>

>>So, can you please explain what you mean by " parent rock " ?

>

>What I meant when I said that is the rock that the soil is more or

>less derived from. The source of the mineral fraction of the current

>soil or of the original soil, or whatever. This is being said to

>differentiate that mineral from the mineral that is in a state that

>is accessible by plants.

But I don't follow how a farm on a " parent rock " can go on and on completely

self sufficient forever and ever. I mean, how much of that mineral is

actually *accessible* to the plant roots? I have no idea how long it takes

that rock's minerals to become available to plants, but I wouldn't be

surprised if it were thousands of years or more. We're talking about the

lifetime of a human being in terms of the self-sustaining farm. Also, it

would depend on how deep the plant roots grow, the microbial life of the

soil and so many other variables that I'm not really convinced that having a

" parent rock " under one's farm is going to guarantee a lifetime of complete

self-sustainability.

Of course, it seems to me that current

>theory is that plants do not access ANY minerals but get all of their

>mineral-derived nutrition from the protoplasm of dead biota.

How do these theorists explain HOW minerals get INTO plants then?

I've

>read plenty that contradicts this, incudling being told that there

>are photomicrographs of feeder roots taking nutrients from humus.

>Just the same, unless I'm mistaken, current view is that healthy

>plants live off the protoplasm of microbiota. They can, of course,

>take up nutrients in liquid, which is the basis of conventional

>agriculture with its water-based or water-soluable fertilizers. Back

>on the BRIX path, it is the contention of many biological farmers

>that liquid fertilizers are taken up by a plant without it's choice

>(it went for a drink and got a dowse of NPK), but plants that

>actually choose their own food (by feeder roots sucking up protoplasm

>from dead microbes) develop to be the plants that our DNA developed

>with. (e.g. plants that were NOT grown on liquid fertilizers) Suze -

>I'm just talking off the cuff here. Anything I say is just pointers

>for further thought/investigation.

That's a really interesting theory and makes sense on the surface of it.

Mammals have some capacity for selective absorption, and do so according to

their needs, so I don't see any reason why plants would be any different.

>>>Yex, why don't you sign up for that pre-confernence workshop with

>>>ARDEN ANd Elaine? If you haven't heard of Elaine before, you've

>>>definitely been out of the biological farming mainstream! She's the

>>>cat's meow right now (at least her lab and her theories are!!)

>>

>>Ha, funny. I Just talked to a midwest farmer yesterday who's been

>to one of

>>her presentations and said everyone was falling asleep - that she over

>>complicates things with all her diagrams and such. Oh well, can't please

>>everyone.

>

> " over complicates things'? What sort of a MID-WEST farmer was this?

>Is his soil food web cooking, or what?

He's a Reams' guy. Yes his soil food web is cooking from what I hear. He

thinks it's *relatively* simpleb(compared to Ingham's approach) to creat

fertile soil, if I understood him correctly. And he works with very large

growers. *shrug*

Most people find her

>presentations stimulating and downright exciting. Worse than that, I

>hosted her at our conference two years back and I think she spoke

>about 20 hours out of the 3 day conference!! It was incredible. (And

>people complained when I finally gave her the hook!) Gotta love her.

>She's a trooper!!

Well, I think I'd be interested in seeing her, if I get the chance.

>

>>

>>I wish I *could* sign up for their pre-conference workshop but

>I'm not even

>>sure I an afford the conference itself. We'll see.

>

>You should talk to her. Maybe she has scholarships. Or work study....

Well, I can't go to both the conference AND the pre-conference. IF I go,

it'll be to the conference. Thanks for the suggestion though - maybe ACRES

offers scholarships to the conference too...

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]

>But I don't follow how a farm on a " parent rock " can go on and on completely

>self sufficient forever and ever. I mean, how much of that mineral is

>actually *accessible* to the plant roots? I have no idea how long it takes

>that rock's minerals to become available to plants, but I wouldn't be

>surprised if it were thousands of years or more. We're talking about the

>lifetime of a human being in terms of the self-sustaining farm. Also, it

>would depend on how deep the plant roots grow, the microbial life of the

>soil and so many other variables that I'm not really convinced that having a

> " parent rock " under one's farm is going to guarantee a lifetime of complete

>self-sustainability.

I can tell you that our well water is FULL of minerals, no matter how much

we pump out (thousands and thousands of gallons). The minerals leach

from the rocks and sand. If we used that to water the garden (well, we do!)

it would cover the garden with calcium, magnesium, and iron. And arsenic,

oh well. The soil is full of rocks and sand, and they DO dissolve. I tried to

use one of the local rocks for making kimchi and the whole thing turned

red in a day. Rainwater is less acidic than kimchi, to be sure, but it is

acidic,

and it gets more so with all that decomposing organic matter, or maybe it

is the bacteria directly. I don't know how long it will take for all the rocks

to decompose,

but shoot, they've been here since the last ice age and it rains a LOT in

this neck of the woods. So in 10,000 years, we haven't exhausted our

supply of " parent rock " .

I suppose if one was very careful to remove all the rocks from the

garden it would be more of a problem. But isn't soil composed of

a lot of sand too?

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

> RE: Organic and the Environment

>

>

>

>

>>But I don't follow how a farm on a " parent rock " can go on and on

>completely

>>self sufficient forever and ever. I mean, how much of that mineral is

>>actually *accessible* to the plant roots? I have no idea how long it takes

>>that rock's minerals to become available to plants, but I wouldn't be

>>surprised if it were thousands of years or more. We're talking about the

>>lifetime of a human being in terms of the self-sustaining farm. Also, it

>>would depend on how deep the plant roots grow, the microbial life of the

>>soil and so many other variables that I'm not really convinced

>that having a

>> " parent rock " under one's farm is going to guarantee a lifetime

>of complete

>>self-sustainability.

>

>I can tell you that our well water is FULL of minerals, no matter how much

>we pump out (thousands and thousands of gallons). The minerals leach

>from the rocks and sand. If we used that to water the garden (well, we do!)

>it would cover the garden with calcium, magnesium, and iron. And arsenic,

>oh well. The soil is full of rocks and sand, and they DO dissolve.

As far as I understand it though, they largely need *microbial* action in

order to become available to the plant.

>I tried to

>use one of the local rocks for making kimchi and the whole thing turned

>red in a day. Rainwater is less acidic than kimchi, to be sure,

>but it is acidic,

>and it gets more so with all that decomposing organic matter, or maybe it

>is the bacteria directly. I don't know how long it will take for

>all the rocks to decompose,

>but shoot, they've been here since the last ice age and it rains a LOT in

>this neck of the woods. So in 10,000 years, we haven't exhausted our

>supply of " parent rock " .

I'm not certain, but I don't think the rain would make much of a difference

(or it might wash AWAY some of the soil nutrients). Again, it's the

microbial life of the soil that makes the nutrients available to the plant

roots to my understanding.

Also, how long has your land been tilled? We're talking about farms being

sustainable for something like 50 years or so. If your's is fairly virgin

soil, then you are lucky that nutrients have not been drawn from it and

taken elsewhere. Here on the east coast, our topsoil has been drained of

nutrients from centuries of overfarming.

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]

>Allan,

>

>How do you know this? Or are you assuming based on

>certain philosophical presuppositions that this is

>true?

>

>What is out about biodynamics or eco-agriculture that

>*assures* us of nutritionally dense foods in a

>verifiable manner?

>

>Is the " organic movement " considered a part of

>biological agricultural? If so how do you account for

>the conventional analyzes which suggest that organic

>food at *best* is only *slightly* more nutritious than

>conventional food? Many of the brix folks with their

>approach have said much the same thing.

This isn't about biodynamics for me. This is about good farming

practices that create a nutrient situation in the soil that allows

the plant to more fully express the potential in it's DNA to be

appropriate food for humans. Without access to every molecule it

needs (nutrients), the plant may take form, but it will iack

substance. it is that substance that we eat for.

Organic movement farms tend to work more closely with nature than

industrial organic farms do. That's why I say that. However,

allopathic organic farms tend to not have well developoed soil

ecology. Biodynamics has been demonstrated to BUILD topsoil and

remediate previously infertile lands (see Podolinsky). It is one

example of a farming method that augments natural soil life and

systems.

Jerry Brunetti has assayed biologicallly grown produce for mineral

content. It is he I am going by when I use the phrase 'nutritionally

dense.' This denseness is most likely to occur in farms that use

methods that boast the activity of the microbial/microscopic fraction

of the soil because it makes more nutrients available to the plants.

You have to accept that some farmers have systems and practices that

produce highly lnutritional foods. The best standard for evaluating

this quality is by your own taste and your own feelings after eating

the foods. Brunetti says, however, that forage analysis is rather

inexpensive in most states and one can send any produce they have

questions about the actual content of to one of those labs. Check

with your local NRCS to see what is avail to you. (He says that an IR

test is worthless, so don't go with a lab tht does that.)

Does this make sense? If not, let me know and I'll try again.

Thanks -Allan

[Guest guest]

>But I don't follow how a farm on a " parent rock " can go on and on completely

>self sufficient forever and ever. I mean, how much of that mineral is

>actually *accessible* to the plant roots? I have no idea how long it takes

>that rock's minerals to become available to plants, but I wouldn't be

>surprised if it were thousands of years or more. We're talking about the

>lifetime of a human being in terms of the self-sustaining farm. Also, it

>would depend on how deep the plant roots grow, the microbial life of the

>soil and so many other variables that I'm not really convinced that having a

> " parent rock " under one's farm is going to guarantee a lifetime of complete

>self-sustainability.

First off, Suzi, the minerals do run out and then the plant life

starts failing - in Nature and in fields - and then a new Ice Age

comes. With that, comes a re-mineralizataion that deals with most of

your issues. At least, that's how Nature deals with the issues you

raise.

As far as what I said: buy the Soil food Web book from SFI and you'll

find out how microscopic life dissolves minerals and makes the

minerals assimlatable to plants upon tgheir death (the death of the

microbe) through their own inner juices You will also find out about

the the whole rhizosphere thing, where the plant pumps 30percent of

the sugar it makes from sunshine into it's root ball to feed and lure

microbes to live there. The plant then feeds on the corpses of these

microbes.

Contrast this with conventional ag or industrial organic where there

is hardly any microbial life. This is where you see the big

difference with nutrients avail to the plant and nutrients available

to the humans who eat the plants.

I came in late on this sustainable issue. It flatly doesn't interest

me as an intellectual exercise, but all of my farming skill has been

oriented at knowing how to produce food in the coming hard times.

That said, while things are still 'easy,' I'm loading my soil with

both SUMMA rock dust (SUMMA is to Azomite what Azomite is to common

compost) microbial innocultions from high quality compost and from

the EM products that are so popular in Asia. I'm expecting much

higher productivity and food quality that will be staggering - will

be obvious to the casual consumer. (And, yes, it s.b. of very high

BRIX ;-)

Does this help? -Allan

[Guest guest]

>I'm not certain, but I don't think the rain would make much of a difference

>(or it might wash AWAY some of the soil nutrients). Again, it's the

>microbial life of the soil that makes the nutrients available to the plant

>roots to my understanding.

Suze - Unfortunately, it's not that simple. Plants CAN take up some

nutrients in their water roots (with water) (well, a lot of

nurtients: it's the way that conventional ag fertizers work, but it

builds form without REAL substance) A well water source makes perfect

sense. It will help, but it is not likely to be suffecient (probably

not by a long shot)

Rain, btw, works wonders in a biological garden. We always get

'unexplainable' growth and 'perfecttion' after A GOOD rain. They tell

me that a lightning storm makes for even better growth, but I can't

confirm this. (Lightning apparently releases nitrogen in the

atmosphere.)

-Allan

>

>Also, how long has your land been tilled? We're talking about farms being

>sustainable for something like 50 years or so. If your's is fairly virgin

>soil, then you are lucky that nutrients have not been drawn from it and

>taken elsewhere. Here on the east coast, our topsoil has been drained of

>nutrients from centuries of overfarming.

[Guest guest]

>As far as I understand it though, they largely need *microbial* action in

>order to become available to the plant.

I think that is at least sometimes true, but wouldn't most soil

have microbes? Unless you actively kill the soil, which yeah,

factory farms do.

I did an experiment once with hydroponics though, as a kid,

growing plants in water, adding minerals, nitrates, etc. in their

pure form in varying amounts and watching the plant reactions

if they didn't get enough of one nutrient, like calcium. The plants

DID absorb calcium from the water, from pure calcium salts ...

maybe not to some ideal level, but it is untrue that they *can't*

absorb them in their pure dissolved form. It IS true that plants

generally do better in a rich microbial/fungal environment, or

so I've heard (though I've seen some healthy-looking plants

grown hydroponically too, so I'm not sure there is good rigorous

proof of that assumption ... I think it is a lot harder and takes

more tweaking to make hydroponics work while the microbes

live symbiotically and generally balance things out better, like

kefir works better than yogurt culture).

> I'm not certain, but I don't think the rain would make much of a difference

>(or it might wash AWAY some of the soil nutrients). Again, it's the

>microbial life of the soil that makes the nutrients available to the plant

>roots to my understanding.

>

>Also, how long has your land been tilled? We're talking about farms being

>sustainable for something like 50 years or so. If your's is fairly virgin

>soil, then you are lucky that nutrients have not been drawn from it and

>taken elsewhere. Here on the east coast, our topsoil has been drained of

>nutrients from centuries of overfarming.

Well, I think that is the difference between the coasts. The

central grasslands were really, really rich soil, and people

depleted it. Our soil is really horrid, not much topsoil at

all and then it is clay hardpan. So the longer you till it,

the better it gets. Which is why it's hard for me to relate to

that set of issues. A LOT of the world is not really good

farmland ... it can be if it is worked, but like the island where

they found the " little people " , if the island is resource-poor

to begin with it's hard to make it do much. Land all started

out as bare rock, and some land was bare rock pretty recently.

I was trying to discriminate between mineral " nutrients " and

gas " nutrients " . (Some other limiting factors in soil are the

quantity and quality of the microbes, Ph, and the mix of clay,

sand, and humus, which are not generally called " nutrients "

I think, but the plants care about them.) Gas nutrients get renewed

from the air, in a decent system (nitrates from nitrogen-fixers,

for example). Mineral nutrients get renewed from sand

and rock, again, in a decent system ... but most soil isn't in

danger of running out of sand or rock. The question is

how FAST the minerals leach from the rock vs. how fast

the plants use them up.

My understanding of the problems on the East coast is

that there was this nice thick layer of topsoil (from grass)

which has been allowed to wash away. Topsoil has more

humus and microbial life, mixed with the usual clay

and sand. So a farmer would have to build up the topsoil

again, which means being smarter about farming, and I

don't pretend to know what will work on a large scale, only

that it is being done is some places and that I can do it

myself (being a very dumb and lazy farmer) on a small scale.

In some areas of the country, the soil was ALWAYS low in

some mineral nutrients, just by it's nature, or the PH isn't

what you want for the crop you want to grow. Our

soil is very acidic, so to grow most " normal " crops it needs

lime, which you have to bring in. The native vegetation likes

acidic soil just fine, so my own solution to the problem is

to concentrate on stuff that likes to grow here, like berries.

But I don't count that as a depletion problem ... the problem

is what humans want vs. how the soil is and always has been.

Another problem, I think, is that the human-centric crops, like

the grains, use stuff out of the soil at a much higher

rate than the native vegetation ever did, or they just

have higher needs because they are basically artificial

plants. The modern grains are as artificial as a cornish-cross

meat chicken, neither can survive without a lot of human

intervention. So maybe for those plants you really have

to add stuff to the soil because the usual processes

just don't go fast enough?

Anyway, I'm not in disagreement at all about the

need for good active topsoil. The original discussion

was about being " self-sufficient " , where do the inputs

come from.

-- Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

Heidi, et al -

The soil foodweb people postulate that ALL of the SOIL in the US

lacks suffecient microbes for optimum health. This is due to abuse by

agriculture AND by abuse from the atmosphere (via human pollution) by

things like acid rain.

This is not just farmland, this is ALL LAND. This is why some

varieties of trees are going extinct in the national forests and why

deer et all are getting mad cow-type diseases from their forage

(according to Purdey)

The good news is that if you do an albrecht soil balancing and then

start making compost tea FROM GOOD COMPOST, you can restore your soil

to a STATE of NATURE where the soil is vigorously productive.

The strength of the people who settled North America is legendary. It

is said that a man with a chainsaw today cannot be as productive as a

man with an axe was in the 19th century? Why? because we have NO

SOURCES for full nutritional foods, be they vegetable or meat. Even

the good stuff we have is a shade of what natural fertility produced

100's of years ago.

But, soil food web building is a step towwards remediating this.

Read up on microbes: you will find that they are far more fragile

than public school has taught us. (well, at least the GOOD GUYS

are... ;-_(

[Guest guest]

> RE: Organic and the Environment

>

>

>>

>>Also, how long has your land been tilled? We're talking about farms being

>>sustainable for something like 50 years or so. If your's is fairly virgin

>>soil, then you are lucky that nutrients have not been drawn from it and

>>taken elsewhere. Here on the east coast, our topsoil has been drained of

>>nutrients from centuries of overfarming.

>

>Well, I think that is the difference between the coasts. The

>central grasslands were really, really rich soil, and people

>depleted it. Our soil is really horrid, not much topsoil at

>all and then it is clay hardpan. So the longer you till it,

>the better it gets. Which is why it's hard for me to relate to

>that set of issues.

Ah, OK. You have a different set of issues, but I guess we're starting at

the same point both having poor soils :-(

>

>In some areas of the country, the soil was ALWAYS low in

>some mineral nutrients, just by it's nature, or the PH isn't

>what you want for the crop you want to grow. Our

>soil is very acidic, so to grow most " normal " crops it needs

>lime, which you have to bring in.

New England soil is also very acidic. But the lime needs to be balanced with

other minerals and I don't think most farmers are doing that.

The native vegetation likes

>acidic soil just fine, so my own solution to the problem is

>to concentrate on stuff that likes to grow here, like berries.

>But I don't count that as a depletion problem ... the problem

>is what humans want vs. how the soil is and always has been.

This is a very good point. I should look around and see what's native to my

area. Well, blueberries are a big one, but I want to grow veggies, not

fruit. LOL Maine is a big *potato* state too. Well, I'm only planning on

having a few raised beds to start and will be working on the soil fertility,

so I'll probably grow whatever it is I want to grow for taste and

nutritional reasons. If I expand at some point, I'll think about " going

native " (to some extent).

>Anyway, I'm not in disagreement at all about the

>need for good active topsoil. The original discussion

>was about being " self-sufficient " , where do the inputs

>come from.

I think that when you start with bad soil there is no question you need to

bring in inputs to get it jump-started. What is interesting though, is I

*think* you can drastically reduce the amount of inputs necessary when the

soil reaches *high* fertility. At least that's what I'm hearing from some ag

folks who work the same soil (without rotating) year after year (even in a

greenhouse) and are producing high brix crops. In fact, I think Albrecht

says the same thing. Maybe, unbalanced, nutrient-deficient soil just

requires more inputs to produce anything reasonable, and well-balanced,

well-nourished soil is more efficient?

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 and the Environment

>

>

>

>>I'm not certain, but I don't think the rain would make much of a

>difference

>>(or it might wash AWAY some of the soil nutrients). Again, it's the

>>microbial life of the soil that makes the nutrients available to the plant

>>roots to my understanding.

>

>

>Suze - Unfortunately, it's not that simple. Plants CAN take up some

>nutrients in their water roots (with water) (well, a lot of

>nurtients: it's the way that conventional ag fertizers work, but it

>builds form without REAL substance)

Well, I understand that they can take up *some* nutrients, otherwise I

wonder if hydroponics would work? But, my understanding is that, by and

large, the microbes make the nutrients much more available in assimable form

and thus you'll have a much better chance of producing a plant worth eating

if the microbes are present and do their job.

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 and the Environment

>

>

>

>>But I don't follow how a farm on a " parent rock " can go on and on

>completely

>>self sufficient forever and ever. I mean, how much of that mineral is

>>actually *accessible* to the plant roots? I have no idea how long it takes

>>that rock's minerals to become available to plants, but I wouldn't be

>>surprised if it were thousands of years or more. We're talking about the

>>lifetime of a human being in terms of the self-sustaining farm. Also, it

>>would depend on how deep the plant roots grow, the microbial life of the

>>soil and so many other variables that I'm not really convinced

>that having a

>> " parent rock " under one's farm is going to guarantee a lifetime

>of complete

>>self-sustainability.

>

>First off, Suzi,

I have to wonder if that's intentional...gosh, you even heard Sally

pronounce my name correctly at the conference (unless you weren't at the

sat. night banquet). ;-)

>As far as what I said: buy the Soil food Web book from SFI and you'll

>find out how microscopic life dissolves minerals and makes the

>minerals assimlatable to plants upon tgheir death (the death of the

>microbe) through their own inner juices You will also find out about

>the the whole rhizosphere thing, where the plant pumps 30percent of

>the sugar it makes from sunshine into it's root ball to feed and lure

>microbes to live there. The plant then feeds on the corpses of these

>microbes.

Interesting...

>Contrast this with conventional ag or industrial organic where there

>is hardly any microbial life. This is where you see the big

>difference with nutrients avail to the plant and nutrients available

>to the humans who eat the plants.

Right, that is my understanding as well.

>

>I came in late on this sustainable issue. It flatly doesn't interest

>me as an intellectual exercise,

Me either. Were you participating solely as an intellectual exercise? I can

only speak for myself, but this discussion directly relates to my health as

I learn how to better feed myself including starting my own garden next

year. IOW, it's anything *but* an intellectual exercise.

but all of my farming skill has been

>oriented at knowing how to produce food in the coming hard times.

>That said, while things are still 'easy,' I'm loading my soil with

>both SUMMA rock dust (SUMMA is to Azomite what Azomite is to common

>compost) microbial innocultions from high quality compost and from

>the EM products that are so popular in Asia.

I've been using EM on my house plants and they seem to really like it. I

plan on using it in my garden next year too.

I'm expecting much

>higher productivity and food quality that will be staggering - will

>be obvious to the casual consumer. (And, yes, it s.b. of very high

>BRIX ;-)

Well, please do let us know how it comes out. I'm a student of anything that

works and is eco-friendly.

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]

>Well, I understand that they can take up *some* nutrients, otherwise I

>wonder if hydroponics would work? But, my understanding is that, by and

>large, the microbes make the nutrients much more available in assimable form

>and thus you'll have a much better chance of producing a plant worth eating

>if the microbes are present and do their job.

Yes, that is true. Microbes must be present AND a mineral source,

even if it is in a form that is not available to the plants. Which

reminds me: microbial availability of minerals is NOT immediate, so,

first year gardens often use mineral powder inputs that make

nutrients more readily available to plants in the first season. On

top of that, for the first season, as you well know, are the foliar

nutrient mixes, which, unfortunatley, I more and more feel are simply

stimulants to encourage either the plant to pick up more of the same

substances from the soil -or- to stimulate the soil microbes within

the plant rhizosphere to be more productive.

[Guest guest]

> >I came in late on this sustainable issue. It flatly doesn't interest

>>me as an intellectual exercise,

>

>Me either. Were you participating solely as an intellectual exercise? I can

>only speak for myself, but this discussion directly relates to my health as

>I learn how to better feed myself including starting my own garden next

>year. IOW, it's anything *but* an intellectual exercise.

Whatever, Suze. My point is that the goal of my CSA is to 'produce

food of the highest quality for the children of all species.' Maybe

we should have a sustainability plank in that statement, but, for us,

sustainability is implicit, however, we never place it in the moment

over our goal of producing food of the highest possible quality. For

example, I know how to produce fertility in a field without bringing

additional inputs into that field (even faster though, if we can

bring in a few ruminants!), but it is much more practical and

appropriate in the present economic sphere to bring in rock dusts by

the truckload to boost the soil food web in a winter's time to a

level that produces food in the realm of 'the highest possible

quality' (And this in the context of other practices, of course.)

From a sustainablity point of view, this puts us WAY on the wrong

side of the energy equation, (Per a common definition of

sustainability) but on the right side of the BRIX equation.

Suze - You keep talking about starting your garden next year. If you

are starting a garden next year, that will be you 2006 food garden.

Right now is the time to start your food garden for 2005. Make no

mistake about it: Everything you need for a biological garden NEXT

YEAR should be incorporated into the soil the winter beofre and

BEFORE the ground IS FROZEN. Doing this allows the soil to digest and

assimilate what you give it. (You can even give it raw cow or horse

manure the winter before, a cheap and powerful amend to any soil.)

Otherwise, you will be chasing an endless loop of deficiencies,

diseases and pests and will be a full season behind on arriving at

the earliest point of balance (your third year).

Just advice from someone who has been 'down that road' many times. ;-)

-Allan

[Guest guest]

> RE: Organic and the Environment

>

>

>

>> >I came in late on this sustainable issue. It flatly doesn't interest

>>>me as an intellectual exercise,

>>

>>Me either. Were you participating solely as an intellectual

>exercise? I can

>>only speak for myself, but this discussion directly relates to my

>health as

>>I learn how to better feed myself including starting my own garden next

>>year. IOW, it's anything *but* an intellectual exercise.

>

>Whatever, Suze. My point is that the goal of my CSA is to 'produce

>food of the highest quality for the children of all species.'

Maybe I misunderstood you - I thought you meant you weren't interested in

carrying on this discussion whatsoever as it was just an intellectual

exercise for you.

Maybe

>we should have a sustainability plank in that statement, but, for us,

>sustainability is implicit, however, we never place it in the moment

>over our goal of producing food of the highest possible quality. For

>example, I know how to produce fertility in a field without bringing

>additional inputs into that field (even faster though, if we can

>bring in a few ruminants!), but it is much more practical and

>appropriate in the present economic sphere to bring in rock dusts by

>the truckload to boost the soil food web in a winter's time to a

>level that produces food in the realm of 'the highest possible

>quality' (And this in the context of other practices, of course.)

> From a sustainablity point of view, this puts us WAY on the wrong

>side of the energy equation, (Per a common definition of

>sustainability) but on the right side of the BRIX equation.

I completely understand and in fact that's precisely why I was questioning

the organic certification documents stating that farmers should have minimal

inputs. I'm not sure how they're supposed to achieve nutrient-density

without substantial inputs considering the state of much of the soil in the

US. Although, my understanding is, as mentioned in a previous post, that

once the soil fertility is *high* and *balanced* then fewer inputs are

needed.

>

>Suze - You keep talking about starting your garden next year. If you

>are starting a garden next year, that will be you 2006 food garden.

>Right now is the time to start your food garden for 2005. Make no

>mistake about it: Everything you need for a biological garden NEXT

>YEAR should be incorporated into the soil the winter beofre and

>BEFORE the ground IS FROZEN. Doing this allows the soil to digest and

>assimilate what you give it. (You can even give it raw cow or horse

>manure the winter before, a cheap and powerful amend to any soil.)

I know, but I probably won't be able to get much going before the ground

freezes, but I'll try. I just recently made the decision and haven't yet had

time to figure out how I'm going to go about it.

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]

>I completely understand and in fact that's precisely why I was questioning

>the organic certification documents stating that farmers should have minimal

>inputs. I'm not sure how they're supposed to achieve nutrient-density

>without substantial inputs considering the state of much of the soil in the

>US. Although, my understanding is, as mentioned in a previous post, that

>once the soil fertility is *high* and *balanced* then fewer inputs are

>needed.

Suze - Two things:

The purpose of Industrial Organics (USDA Certified Organics) is to

MAKE MONEY. I don't see any reason to assume otherwise. That's why

their produce and prepared items are NOT as nutritional as they might

otherwise be. It is expensive - in time and labor and materials - to

produce nutritionally dense foods.

In regards to the 'less inputs' thing, keep in mind that it takes

about THREE YEARS for Albrecht treatments to actually be effective.

Also keep in mind that most organic inputs (such as compost) give up

only 1/3 of their nutrients value per season. In other words, a good

treatment of compost will only give you 1/3 of the nutrients in it

for the season, but it will give another 1/3 the next year, and the

year there after (plus, in this case, the edge of all that microbial

innoculation.) Same holds true for rock amendments (Phosphage, Green

Sand, etc)

[Guest guest]

>I know, but I probably won't be able to get much going before the ground

>freezes, but I'll try. I just recently made the decision and haven't yet had

>time to figure out how I'm going to go about it.

If you can't remove the cover layer and cultivate, then you might try

covering heavily with OAT straw after you have dusted with high

quality rock dust and innoculated with EM and/or aerobic compost tea.

Repeat the innoculation several times a season. (Right onto the

straw.)

Great!!

[Guest guest]

> RE: Organic and the Environment

>

>

>

>>I know, but I probably won't be able to get much going before the ground

>>freezes, but I'll try. I just recently made the decision and

>haven't yet had

>>time to figure out how I'm going to go about it.

>

>If you can't remove the cover layer and cultivate, then you might try

>covering heavily with OAT straw after you have dusted with high

>quality rock dust and innoculated with EM and/or aerobic compost tea.

>Repeat the innoculation several times a season. (Right onto the

>straw.)

>

>Great!!

Allan,

Thanks for the tips :-) Here's my MAIN dilemma, where am I going to get the

soil? I'm going to put in two raised beds. My dad said he could help me put

them in next weekend. We probably won't have a hard frost till around

Thanksgiving. But since the beds are *raised* I need to bring in additional

soil. My dad told me to look in the paper for someone selling *loam*. I

don't want *any 'ol* loam, I want decent soil. Is there any criteria I

should be looking for when purchasing soil, assuming sellers are not going

to have labels listing the nutrient content of their soil. LOL

Also, where can I find *high* quality rock dust? Soft rock phosphate is

specifically what I'm interested in, a la Reams. I will also post these

questions to the brix-list. Thanks for your input.

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]

Dear Suze - How high are your raised beds to be? Unless you are going

for 3-5ft high beds (some with bodily injuries do), it is best to

raise your beds through cultivation. You have to excavate the soil

where you want your beds, to two feet minimum -= IF YOU HAVE THAT

MUCH TOP SOIL or 100% of the topsoil up to the first foot. After

that, simple cultivation of the subsoil is adequate (Do not mix

subsoil into the topsoil at this point in yoru gardening life!) For

two beds, you do NOT want to import topsoil Imagine the mess you will

create from a Reams perspective if you bring in a soil that is

substantively different than the soil in your yard. Your beds will

NOT be separate entities from your garden, just loose garden soil in

boxes. If you separate your bed soil from your yard soil (by being of

a different type, from a differnt source) you are working against

yourself.

(Path soil can also be put into your raised beds, giving you some more height)

On the other hand, by following Jeavon's instructions in HOW to

GROW MORE VEGETGABLES, you can 'easily' raise your existing soil 1ft

or more (which is plenty) adding compost (Which you CAN buy) to the

beds as you make them CAN give you a few more inches. Continued

addition of amendments will continue to raise your beds above the

ground...but will keep in being similar to your yard (and the

micro-climate that created those soils).

Unless you REALLY need wooden sides on your beds, don't use them.

They are expensive, get in a gardeners way and HARBOR PREDATIOUS

HARMFUL CREATURES (like SLUGS!!)

[Guest guest]

> RE: Organic and the Environment

>

>

>

>Dear Suze - How high are your raised beds to be? Unless you are going

>for 3-5ft high beds (some with bodily injuries do), it is best to

>raise your beds through cultivation.

OK. They are only going to be...I dunno...less than a foot high, I guess, or

thereabouts.

You have to excavate the soil

>where you want your beds, to two feet minimum -= IF YOU HAVE THAT

>MUCH TOP SOIL or 100% of the topsoil up to the first foot. After

>that, simple cultivation of the subsoil is adequate (Do not mix

>subsoil into the topsoil at this point in yoru gardening life!)

How deep down does the subsoil begin?

For

>two beds, you do NOT want to import topsoil Imagine the mess you will

>create from a Reams perspective if you bring in a soil that is

>substantively different than the soil in your yard. Your beds will

>NOT be separate entities from your garden, just loose garden soil in

>boxes. If you separate your bed soil from your yard soil (by being of

>a different type, from a differnt source) you are working against

>yourself.

Hmmm...so, soil taken from an area within a 25- or 50-mile radius might be

so drastically different than mine that I'd have to worry about it? One

possibility is getting some from my brother's land a mile down the road. Do

you think that would be problematic?

>

>(Path soil can also be put into your raised beds, giving you some

>more height)

I don't know what " path " soil is...

>

>On the other hand, by following Jeavon's instructions in HOW to

>GROW MORE VEGETGABLES, you can 'easily' raise your existing soil 1ft

>or more (which is plenty) adding compost (Which you CAN buy) to the

>beds as you make them CAN give you a few more inches. Continued

>addition of amendments will continue to raise your beds above the

>ground...but will keep in being similar to your yard (and the

>micro-climate that created those soils).

OK. I will probably have to bring in SOME soil from somewhere though,

because I will have to build raised mounds for the yams, or so I've been

told.

>Unless you REALLY need wooden sides on your beds, don't use them.

>They are expensive, get in a gardeners way and HARBOR PREDATIOUS

>HARMFUL CREATURES (like SLUGS!!)

I was just thinking of using regular ol' wooden 2 by 4s. What do you suggest

using? I HATE slugs...we can't have them loitering in my garden...oh no, no

no! <g>

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]

comments embedded in mesage

--- Allan Balliett <igg@...> wrote:

> >Allan,

> >

> >How do you know this? Or are you assuming based on

> >certain philosophical presuppositions that this is

> >true?

> >

> >What is out about biodynamics or eco-agriculture

> that

> >*assures* us of nutritionally dense foods in a

> >verifiable manner?

> >

> >Is the " organic movement " considered a part of

> >biological agricultural? If so how do you account

> for

> >the conventional analyzes which suggest that

> organic

> >food at *best* is only *slightly* more nutritious

> than

> >conventional food? Many of the brix folks with

> their

> >approach have said much the same thing.

>

> This isn't about biodynamics for me.

Yes I realize this isn't about biodynamics for you. My

question pertains directly to those who hold to the

principles of biodynamics and/or organics. This

presumably includes you. So let me rephrase the

question:

" Why do so many people, when faced with organic or

biodynamically raised food that does not measure up

nutritionally (i.e. is *not* nutrient dense), continue

to insist that biodynamics or organics is superior

anyway. "

I'm not saying it is true of you, but such a response

suggests to me that people have certain prior

philosophical commitments that have nothing to do with

nutrition, but causes them to assert that their food

is nutritious anyway, even when it is pointed out

otherwise.

This is about

> good farming

> practices that create a nutrient situation in the

> soil that allows

> the plant to more fully express the potential in

> it's DNA to be

> appropriate food for humans. Without access to every

> molecule it

> needs (nutrients), the plant may take form, but it

> will iack

> substance. it is that substance that we eat for.

You won't find me disagreeing with any of the above.

My question is how do we *know* that organics and/or

biodynamics provides such food? I don't know much

about biodynamics but I can tell you that much that

passes itself off as organic food is piss poor, and

I'm not just talking the big boys either. Yet the

movement persists largely unchanged since its advent

back in the early part of the last century, blissfully

moving along as if they are producing a noticeably

superior product.

> Organic movement farms tend to work more closely

> with nature than

> industrial organic farms do. That's why I say that.

But that doesn't answer my question. I would like to

think that " organic movement farms " produce a superior

product. But do they? How do we know? Or are we just

to take it on faith that organic movement and

biodynamic farms produce better produce because of

their distinct approach from conventional farming?

While I don't doubt the intentions of those involved,

it would seem that is a very large leap of faith to

make.

> However,

> allopathic organic farms tend to not have well

> developoed soil

> ecology. Biodynamics has been demonstrated to BUILD

> topsoil and

> remediate previously infertile lands (see

> Podolinsky). It is one

> example of a farming method that augments natural

> soil life and

> systems.

If that is true of biodynamics then that is VERY

exciting.

While I'm still thinking through the issues regarding

sustainability, I'm not convinced that it is a zero

sum game. Nor am I convinced of the closed input idea,

at least as it is currently defined. It seems to me

these concepts, at least as I have been introduced to

them, are too narrowly defined, and make an awlful lot

of assumptions which I simply do not share.

> Jerry Brunetti has assayed biologicallly grown

> produce for mineral

> content. It is he I am going by when I use the

> phrase 'nutritionally

> dense.'

Okay. This is the kind of stuff I'm interested in. Put

the goods on the table where I can see them, or in

this case measure them, rather than depend on what is

supposed to happen based on someone's theory. Or as I

read on another list, " why guess when you can know? "

This denseness is most likely to occur in

> farms that use

> methods that boast the activity of the

> microbial/microscopic fraction

> of the soil because it makes more nutrients

> available to the plants.

Okay. Then those " organic movement farms " that are

producing piss poor produce must not understand this

concept.

> You have to accept that some farmers have systems

> and practices that

> produce highly lnutritional foods.

Yes I do accept that, but I don't accept that any

*particular* farm, whatever system they are using, is

necessarily producing highly nutritional foods.

So I accept it in theory, but in any given case I want

it demonstrated that the theory matches the practice.

Or to say it another way in a diferent context from my

theology days, " Yes, all truth is God's truth, but

what you are *saying* is God's truth isn't necessarily

God's truth. "

The best standard

> for evaluating

> this quality is by your own taste and your own

> feelings after eating

> the foods.

Yes I have heard this numerous times and my own

experience bears this out. That is why I don't eat

veggies much anymore, they taste crappy unless they

are in one of my signature salads <g>

And unfortunately I had the experience many years ago

of having a batch of what must have been very nutrient

dense apples, as their taste was out of this world. I

haven't had anything even close to such ecstasy since

then.

Brunetti says, however, that forage

> analysis is rather

> inexpensive in most states and one can send any

> produce they have

> questions about the actual content of to one of

> those labs.

Hmmmm...what is wrong with using a refractometer? That

seems infinitely easier and I can use it at the point

of sale rather than mailing off stuff to someplace.

Check

> with your local NRCS to see what is avail to you.

> (He says that an IR

> test is worthless, so don't go with a lab tht does

> that.)

You are going to have to help me here. NRCS? IR?

> Does this make sense? If not, let me know and I'll

> try again.

Well it seems pretty clear. Doesn't mean I haven't

missed something however.

Thanks,

=====

Kick the Habit: Don't Vote!

http://tinyurl.com/439vl

Eat fat, get thin... lift big, get small.

" They told just the same,

That just because a tyrant has the might

By force of arms to murder men downright

And burn down house and home and leave all flat

They call the man a captain, just for that.

But since an outlaw with his little band

Cannot bring half such mischief on the land

Or be the cause of so much harm and grief,

He only earns the title of a thief. "

--Geoffrey Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

>How deep down does the subsoil begin?

Suze -

Damn, lady, that's what we've been talking about!

It depends how good the last tenant was to the land, how good nature

has been to the land and, unfortunately, how good the contractor who

build your house was to the land...among other things.

Top soil can be a yard thick or it can be non existent. You've just

got to get out there with a spade and find out!

What you want to do is promote aeroration and drainage in the topsoil

without mixing it with the subsoil. You want to loosen the subsoil

under the first food of top soil. (It's ok to have a situation in

this 2ft of loosening where your 2nd ft of loosening is technically

occuring in top soil, also.

-Allan

[Guest guest]

> For

>>two beds, you do NOT want to import topsoil Imagine the mess you will

>>create from a Reams perspective if you bring in a soil that is

>>substantively different than the soil in your yard. Your beds will

>>NOT be separate entities from your garden, just loose garden soil in

>>boxes. If you separate your bed soil from your yard soil (by being of

>>a different type, from a differnt source) you are working against

>>yourself.

>

>Hmmm...so, soil taken from an area within a 25- or 50-mile radius might be

>so drastically different than mine that I'd have to worry about it? One

>possibility is getting some from my brother's land a mile down the road. Do

>you think that would be problematic?

hmm, I don't know. Is he a biological brother or adopted?

Basically, I'm telling you that any soil you buy is probably going to

be poor or it's going to be tainted. IT is very common for top soil

that is banned within a housing development to be bagged up and sold

in town as 'Top Soil.' Very common. (There are standards for how much

apple orchard arsenic can be in the top soil in a new development.

Around here, at least, there are no tests or standards for bagged

'top soil.'

Do they sell leaf mold in your county? That's a good way to get that

FOOT. Be forewarned though: if your goal is excellent food, you don't

want to skimp on your aeroration(sic) or drainage by piling stuff up

on unworked ground!

-Allan

[Guest guest]

>Hmmmm...what is wrong with using a refractometer? That

>seems infinitely easier and I can use it at the point

>of sale rather than mailing off stuff to someplace.

If you want to be scientific, as you appear to be, you'll find that

there isn't much science behind the BRIX concept. For example, can

you actually answer a question as simple as 'What is it that BRIX is

measuring/ " and if the answer is 'sugars minerals etc,' then can you

find a study any where that actually lists WHICH sugars, minerals etc

you are seeing in your refractometer and if they have anything to do

with human health? I haven't been able to find that information, if

it exists. I have found a lot of ag consultants who consider BRIX 1

factor of highly nutritious food. Brunetti is fully aware of BRIX,

but doesnt' consider it to be an accurate indicator of food quality

for humans. No doubt high BRIX foods do taste better: WE'VE ALL LOVED

SUGARS SINCE WE WERE BABIES!! It doesn't have to be highly refined

sugar to make our organisms happy, that's fer sure.

Here's part of an answer to my questions about BRIX in wine grape

harvesting to noted Northern California wine grape consultant, Bob

Shaffer:

>(Bob Shaffer speaking) Brix is certainally a component of flavor,

>but obviously just measuring brix does not give provide the whole

>range of what the human tongue can detect.

>

>Wine grapes are an excellent example of that fact.

>

>For example, if i have grapes and they are at 21 brix and there is a

>heat wave (or if we stop irrigation during hot weather) then we have

>found that the brix increases due to simple concentration (water

>evaporated but sugar remained) but the flavor is not enhanced.

>Flavor is a balance of sweet, sour, salty and bitter and with much

>chemical diversity.

>

>Flavor in grapes comes from the vines genes, soil health, cultural

>practices and the whole environment in which the fruit was farmed.

>If you harvest at supposed " perfect brix " for the wine making

>process....then the fruit may or may not be actually ripe and at

>peak flavor. Flavor is what counts in harvesting fruit and brix is

>just one component of assessing ripeness, in my opinion. Go out in

>the field and try it yourself. Its pretty obvious....brix and

>flavor are related but not the same.

This makes the BRIX issue much more complicated than it is commonly

presented. Refractometers have been being used in the vineyards for

longer than anywhere in agriculture, as far as I know.

>

> Check

>> with your local NRCS to see what is avail to you.

>> (He says that an IR

>> test is worthless, so don't go with a lab tht does

>> that.)

>

>You are going to have to help me here. NRCS? IR?

NRCS: Natural Resource Conservation Service (approx.) In the phone

book under Gov offices under NRCS, most likely. (They share buldings

with USDA FARM SERVICE people. These are very important people to

know because these are the people who can tell you which farms

actually have good grass on them!!! " IR " is INFRA-RED. I can't

explain this, but there is IR Forage testing. It is very cheap, and,

Mr Brunetti says it is worthless.

Thanks for all of your good questions, . -Allan