Hello,
I just joined this site because of a lot of research I've done i
nutrient deficiencies among the 'civilized' areas of the world. Wha
I've found out, is that the majority of the foods that are grown toda
are severely deficient in what a normal healthy human needs. The mai
reason behind this is the type of soil being used to grow foods.
Artificial things mostly. The soil is able to grow things BIG an
FAST, but they are lacking the vitamins and minerals we need, becaus
this soil isn't as good for our food as natural soil is.
The so-called 3rd world countries use no fertlizers that aren't 100
natural, and no extra additives to the soil that could be absorbed b
the food. These cultures have better overall health, don't have th
same types of diseases that we get, and are thinner, with lower bloo
pressure, and live longer. They're thinking this is something as simpl
as vitamin/mineral deficiency in the soil that our Farmers use to gro
the food we typically buy at the Supermarkets.
So, what I'm asking you all is where can I look for good natural soi
to grow food in? If testing, what should I be looking for in thes
tests? I'm wanting to start to grow hopefully the majority of the foo
I eat one day. I live in New Mexico, so good soil is probably hard t
come by.
Any suggestions
--
BRD
Hmm, I don't know where to start. First of all, si there some scientific
evidence of food lacking in vitamins and minerals? And by how much.
Secondly, all soil is natural of course. Farmers rotate crops so that soil
can be "refurbished" through green manures.
Thirdly, the 3rd world countries you talk of are usually starving because
their crops aren't big enough. So would you have less nutritious food, or
less food?
On 9/5/05 1:34 PM, in article lZ1Te.80265$ snipped-for-privacy@twister.nyroc.rr.com,
As a hydroponic hobby grower, I can testify that any vitamins and most of
what you would call minerals is totally lacking in my nutrient except as
contamination. Nevertheless, I would willingly compare one of my tomatoes
against the best "organic" tomato you have. That said, there are essential
elements required for most plants.
My nutrient solution provides plenty of the required elements, viz.
Hydrogen
Oxygen
Nitrogen
Potassium
Phosphorous
Carbon (although primarily from the air)
are required in large amounts.
Lesser amounts are required of
Sulfur
Calcium
Magnesium
Iron
Chlorine.
Trace amounts of
Manganese
Boron
Zinc
Copper
Molybdenum.
Some plants may need other elements like aluminum or cobalt, or even nickel.
In most cases, my guess is that soil will be short of calcium and magnesium.
They are needed in quantities large enough to require replenishment while
not available in cheap fertilizer. While magnesium, from Epsom salt may be
safely added in reasonable quantity, large amounts of boron or copper can
poison the soil.
Bill
I add kelp meal and rock dust to my garden along with plenty of compost and
an organic fertilizer mix. Try these links:
http://www.remineralize.org /
http://www.westsidegardener.com/howto/fertilizer.html
(I use his formula with the addition of 1 part glacial rock dust.)
http://www.biodynamics.com/steiner.html
Good Luck,
LJ
In your research where is this claim supported? Please cite a few
references.
What are these things that humans need that are not in the majority of
foods?
David
While I think some of that is psuedo-science and from the mindset that
organic-is-ALWAYS-better, like pot is a better drug cause it is
"organic".
You only need to look closely at a natural environment to see what
nature does. Wild Plant life perpetuates a cycle of replenishment.
Animals and especially BUGS particpate and are critical to that cycle.
Including good and bad bugs. The squirrels and birds of the forest
don't consciously rake manure into the forest floor. If I were to boil
it down to the most simplistic I would have to say focus on diversity.
Dvierse sources of renourishment. Diverse plants, Diverse bugs.
COmmercial growers have vast problems cause miles of corn provide
miles of food for corn pests, and nothing for bugs that don't eat
corn. Diversity is totally lacking. Use multiple sources of
fertilizers, not all are chemically the same. Yes nitrogen is
nitrogen, but you don't shake nitrogen onto the dirt, it is bound up
in another molecules. How it breaks down, what is required to release
it, what byproduct are left afterward have an affect. You could read
articles for years and still not know everything. I think, go with the
odds, mix it up. Whenever I see new and different bugs in the back
yard I consider it a success. You need that variety. SOme are bad some
are good. You need both.
DiGiTAL ViNYL (no email)
Zone 6b/7, Westchester Co, NY, <1 mile off L.I.Sound
3rd year gardener
http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/royalfrazier/album?.dir=/2055&.src=ph
The only scientific studies that I've seen that support this idea relate
more to the plants' responses to insects and (possibly) disease
organisms. Apparently some of the phytochemicals that are beneficial
to us are produced to repel or otherwise thwart, repel, or otherwise
ward off parasitic organisms. In these studies, the "organically grown"
plants were more subject to direct attack than the plants that were
protected by various pesticides; the latter plants had no need to produce
some nutritionally beneficial phytochemicals. Sorry I don't have the
references readily available...
While I haven't done an extensive search, I don't know of any scientically
valid studies that show that nutrient densities are enhanced in organically
enriched soil. If someone knows of some (or studies that counter this
hypothesis), please post the references!
-frank
The only scientific studies that I've seen that support this ide
relate
more to the plants' responses to insects and (possibly) disease
organisms. Apparently some of the phytochemicals that are beneficial
to us are produced to repel or otherwise thwart, repel, or otherwise
ward off parasitic organisms. In these studies, the "organicall
grown"
plants were more subject to direct attack than the plants that were
protected by various pesticides; the latter plants had no need t
produce
some nutritionally beneficial phytochemicals. Sorry I don't have the
references readily available...
While I haven't done an extensive search, I don't know of an
scientically
valid studies that show that nutrient densities are enhanced i
organically
enriched soil. If someone knows of some (or studies that counter this
hypothesis), please post the references!
-frank
--
Despite the best efforts of the fledgling pharmaceuticals and medica
'science' in general to belittle the problems, by the nineteen thirtie
No, you misread that part. I didn't say this was about third worl
countries, it's about the civilized countries that are deficient.
There are enough nutrients in the soil for the FOOD to grow, and t
look pretty and healthy, but there aren't enough nutrients to fulfill
daily value for human consumption.
And the reason why there isn't a more recent study to quote, is becaus
the US Government knew what was going on in the 30's, but chose to kee
it that way. After all, if we're all sick, we're spending money to bu
drugs to get us well.
They don't want us to get well. The sicker we are, the more drugs w
buy, the richer the FDA and drug companies become.
But, I didn't come here to discuss this fun stuff :) Just looking fo
some tips and tricks
--
BRD
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 17:39:29 +0000, BRD
<snipped, as is right and polite>
So, specifically name the third world country that has a higher
life expectancy than any in the first world. And no airy hand
waving, quote recent and reliable sources.
And, you can't, because life expectancy in the first world is
much higher than in third world countries. There are no nutrient
deficiencies in crops grown in this country. You can make a case
for the danger of pesticide residues, and feel free to shriek
hysterically about GMO's; but a plant that is deficient in
nutrients will be stunted, not unhealthy for a person to eat.
I'm gobsmacked at the sheer stupidity of this statement. No, one
fruit or one vegetable will not give you all the vitamins and
minerals that a person needs, nor will they supply the calories,
protein, fats, or carbohydrates. But, then, they never would, not
back in the "Good Old Days", and not in third world countries
today. Humans and a lot of non-human primates are omnivores, they
consume a wide variety of fruits, seeds, vegetables, and other
animals, fish, and insects to get all the nutrients and calories
they require. Have you never heard the old saw about a healthy
diet being a colorful one? Vegetarians and vegans thrive on crops
grown in the US, too.
Who's sick? What ailments are you speaking of? I'm as healthy as
a horse, and I don't even come close to growing my own food. My
garden is a hobby, mostly peppers, tomatoes, and herbs.
Please point me to the organization that has tested fruits and
vegetables grown under intensive farming conditions, and that can
supply me nutritional facts about each fruit and vegetable
they've tested, and where each fruit and vegetable is considered
deficient. None of this paranoid "the government is hushing it
up" nonsense, either. There are lots and lots of private
organizations that would love to be able to prove that modern
farming methods are detrimental to our health.
I expect that there are differences in the nutritional values of
organic produce verses non-organic; but they're not significant
enough to effect the health of individuals.
To survive the lobotomy you've clearly had? I don't think there's
much hope for you.
I am a firm believer, btw, in the benefits of organic gardening,
but the kind of stupidity that you're spouting damages the
credibility of those of us who try and promote organic gardening
methods to those around us.
Penelope
--
"Maybe you'd like to ask the Wizard for a heart."
"ElissaAnn" < snipped-for-privacy@everybodycansing.com>
Okey dokey, artichoke. Seems like one of us needs to take a littl
nap!
Maybe *you* should ask the Wizard for a heart, or some rag
counseling?
Again, didn't come here to start a war, or ruffle your feather
Peen-A-Lope, and I do believe in organic gardening, just not the kin
provided in Supermarkets. So, this in no way affects the credibility o
you or 'those around you', because I'm trying to get information on hom
gardening, which is what this site is about I take it
--
BRD
Oh, but since you wanted to read something, I'll repeat it again, an
give you a link.
http://tinyurl.com/96tus
Or just do a Google search for Senate Document 264. You'll come up wit
a lot of interesting things to read, and maybe you can direct you
uncalled for rage at them
--
BRD
And before you post again, please be sure to at least read that *one
article before outright refusing any possible information that i
contrary to what you believe.
And if you put int Senate Document 264 in Google, you'll fin
information on Peoples that are Healthier, live longer, and have non
of the 'common' diseases that we do, I.E. Diabetes, Angina, Cancer
Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, depression...and the list goes on
--
BRD
Isn't it great that you would quote such an up to date document
(1936). especially excerpts posted by a liquid vitamin company, to
scare people into buying their product..
Did you ever wonder why the Senate would be discussing something this
trivial, when faced with the greatest depression of modern times.
Go here to find out: http://www.usd.edu/anth/epa/dust.html
You are right (at that time) but not now.
Hey, we learn a lots with open discussion, don't we! The Old Timer.
I am combining the 3 posts BRD made into one. Poor fellow, I skeered
him so bad it took him three tries to answer me.
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 20:35:34 +0000, BRD
<more snippage>
Seems like you've been napping, or is your brain dysfunctional from
the snake oil you've been consuming?
Must be the mineral deficiencies in my vegetables. Oh, wait, I eat
organic vegetables grown on organic soils. Oh, wait again, you reject
the notion that certified organic vegetables are truly organic. Prolly
part of that government conspiracy, huh? Of course, you haven't
offered any criteria on what constitutes an organic vegetable, either,
but let's not confuse the issue with facts, eh?
If you had come here just for advice, that's what you would have asked
about; however, you devoted well over a hundred lines to your
fraudulent claims about depleted soils and government cover-ups. And,
yes, your faux science does damage the credibility of people with real
science who are trying to coax others into trying a few organic
solutions to gardening problems.
Funny how every single site that comes up in a Google search on
"Senate Document 264" is a commercial site, and each and everyone has
the "cure" for the "problem". Not one site that isn't trying to sell
you something. Of even more interest are the sites that come up when
you google on Senate Document 264 and "debunk" or "quackary".
But I wanted to have some information that carried a little weight, so
I started at James Randi's site, and followed links to the National
Council Against Health Fraud, a not-for-profit organization.
<http://www.ncahf.org/ . Searching their web site turned up this
little tidbit:< http://www.ncahf.org/nl/1998/1-2.html Scroll a little
past half way down the page and you'll find this under "DEAD DOCTORS"
DOESN'T DIE
"The most recent contribution to the body of counter information is
offered by Donald Davis, PhD, of the University of Texas at Austin.
Davis located "Senate Document 264" cited by Wallach as evidence that
99% of Americans are deficient in minerals. It turns out that the
"document" is nothing more than the reprinting of a highly speculative
article about a passing fad written by a Florida farmer in the June,
1936, issue of Cosmopolitan magazine as requested by Florida's Senator
Fletcher. Fletcher died 16 days after requesting that the government
printing office reprint the article."
Did ya get that? The famous Senate Document 264 is a reprint of an
article from Cosmopolitan.
Your research on "nutrient deficiencies among the 'civilized' areas of
the world." is based on a 1936 article from Cosmo magazine!
Of course, the nice thing about believing in government conspiracies
is that you can squeal "but..but that's what the government and the
eeeeevil pharmaceutical companies *want* you to believe!"
May I offer you your own advice?
"And before you post again, please be sure to at least read that *one*
article before outright refusing any possible information that is
contrary to what you believe. "
I'm assuming you're referring to Type II diabetes? It's not caused by
deficiencies, but by excesses. A high fat, low fiber diet with lots of
simple carbohydrates (as opposed to complex) with little exercise
predisposes an individual to Type II Diabetes. So, while you might see
less Type II Diabetes in a third world country, it has very little to
do with the soil in which they grow their crops.
Angina? Angina is a symptom of coronary artery disease, the most
common type of heart disease. Coronary Artery Disease occurs when
plaque builds up in the coronary arteries.Once again, angina is most
often a symptom of excess, not deficiency.
There are multiple causes of cancer, just as there are multiple types
of cancer, so that's a little vague to tackle in a Usenet post;
besides the fact that cancer does happen to people in third world
countries. Chronic Fatigue Syndrome is caused by a virus, not
nutritional deficiencies. And depression is another condition with
multiple causes, and also occurs in third world countries.
So, your disease theory is full of holes, too.
Penelope, off to rage at a man about a cricket.
I felt REALLY SUPERIOR before I even started this post.
I felt sorta wryly amused when I wrote that line.
When I got to the bit about the infamous Senate Document 264
being a reprint of an article from Cosmo, well I'm afraid I
cackled gleefully.
Penelope
--
"Maybe you'd like to ask the Wizard for a heart."
"ElissaAnn" < snipped-for-privacy@everybodycansing.com>
Here you go Penalope:
http://tinyurl.com/56hv
This isn't going anywhere, and I found out what I needed to kno
somewhere else anyways.
So, you're all correct, and I'm 100% wrong. Now let me go virtuall
hang my head in shame! <Lip trembles, wipes away tear
--
BRD
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.