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.
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?
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.
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.
BRD wrote:
DiGiTAL ViNYL (no email) Zone 6b/7, Westchester Co, NY,
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!
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!
I have followed this thread, very closely, because there is very little else posted this time of the year. To make these statements about third world countries, are unfounded and not true. Why don't you do your research and then repost, with foot notes.
As far as soil deficiency, and food deficiency, I fail to see the point. If the soil is deficient, then the plant that needs that nutrient will not grow. If 1 tomato will not give you enough vitamin A, then eat two and etc.
Sorry, I don't mean to "flame" anyone, but many will read this post and take it as fact, when it isn't.
I use organic and commercial fertilizer, I also use pesticides and sometime herbicides, I have lived much of my life on the farm, including back in the '30s when we raised most of what we eat(believe me, this is not what you want).
I am sure all the vices will shorten my life span--maybe down to say
90, I will soon be 72, and can still do a pretty good days work. In the spring I still put in 10 maybe 12 hrs a day on the tractor.
== I have lived much of my life on the farm, == including back in the '30s when we raised most of what we eat
This is a subject that easily has 'political overtones.' Like 'global warming.'
Do apples vary in nutrional value- depending on how they are grown, or how far they are shipped?
I have been making organic soil from mulching for the past several years. I have learned to add dolomite-- to keep the sunflowers and corn plants from tipping over when they are fully grown.
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
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.
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
Oh, but since you wanted to read something, I'll repeat it again, an
give you a link.
formatting link
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
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
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:
formatting link
are right (at that time) but not now.
Hey, we learn a lots with open discussion, don't we! The Old Timer.
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. . Searching their web site turned up this little tidbit:<
formatting link
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.
HomeOwnersHub website 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.