It seems to me that to define quality by any one standard, by saying that the other person's produce is not good will lead to a spate of acrimonious discussion that has no benefit to anyone. I think that the direction to go is to try and define what are optimum soil and atmospheric conditions to enhance plants to produce plants of the highest brix content in the plants.
Quality is a most ubiquitous thing, it is like beauty, it is in the eye of the beholder . No one can tell me that all biodynamic food is equal, any more than food grown under so called conventional systems is equal.
If we lived in an ideal world , maybe food could be standardised and things such as quality could be defined. Soils differ and climatic conditions differ, so how could you possibly say that a biodynamic food grown under adverse conditions is automatically better than a conventional food grown under optimum conditions. It is impossible to blanket label all foods as one being "good" and the other not. What are we going to do, test every piece of produce that leaves our farms to ensure that it meets an arbitrary standard. Produce varies even from the position in the row. Just because a piece of produce is measured one day to be of a particular standard does not mean that the next days pick will be exactly the same.
If you are a BD farmer and your food is tested before sale and it does not meet the standards set what are you going to do with it, say "oh well I wont do anything with it because it does not meet the standard". Will you then sell it on the conventional market. In the end it is the consumer who purchases what they perceive to be the best food from what is available. In many cases the food that is produced organically does not meet the criteria of eye appeal. It is eye appeal that sells fruit and vegetables, not how the produce was produced.
The point that I was making about Monaro sheep in some cases being as big as Shetland ponies is that the Monaro in many places appears to be a bleak inhospitable place, but when the right bloodlines and types of stock are used that even poor country will produce excellent returns. Much of the problems with farming are to caused by trying to grow the the wrong crops or stock in somewhere that is not suitable. The use of BD preps does not necessarily overcome this problem
Kind regards
James
RH wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 14:26:18 +1200, Peter Michael Bacchus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
How should we define quality
when comparing produce from so many different countries? Brix, nitrates,
protiens, amino acids? Taste, smell, texture etc. are good if all the goods
are in the same room. I agree that "objective" quality criteria need to be developed too. There are a number of instruments that look at light
emmisions like delayed luminesence and there is Aura photography too. Lets come to some aggrement on this question before we start the comparisons.
Don't forget simple chromatograms. And please add hearing and sight to your "taste, smell, texture." I've also found that ordinary heft speaks to higher quality. And then there are animal feeding experiments. My personal favorite quality measure is resistence to rot. I guess in seeds, germination rates tell a lot---a whole lot.
Steve Diver, a member of this list, has put a lot of work into trying to background quality and has published a brief paper on the subject. I hope one day he expands and converts that into a book. For some reason I think the English have worked a good bit on how to determine high quality food from low. Perhaps their famous proclivity to tooth decay alerted them to the need somewhat earlier.
Do keep in mind that government agencies are loathe to talk about quality. I understand that because for them to say that one food is better, or safer, is to simultaneously say that the vast majority of what is called food is not so good and not so safe. So they dodge the issue by deliberately "assuming" all food is the same. They hope (pray) that all of us will assume all food is the same. Therein comes the USDA tables of nutrients, a truly awe-inspiring piece of propaganda.
I mentioned animal feeding experiments. Those are easy because you have captive subjects. For instance, if the animal fails to thrive on one farmer's pasture, but grows and functions perfectly on another farmer's grass, the quality case is closed(*). Lately, I have seen an article about feeding prisoners and how higher quality food equates to less inhouse violence and minimal recidivism.
The list goes on and on. Quality is what we should all be striving for. Agriculture makes such perfect sense when quality is in the equation. If BD, radionics, homeopathy, or whatever are to be truly pertinent, then they have to speak to quality.
Thanks for showing some interest. Most people are only concerned with the bins and bushels. To date, ordinary "organic" has shown me little, if any, quality improvement over conventional. I'm hopeful BD will build a better track record. In my very humble opinion (IMVHO), something HAS to build a better track record or we are going to see weaker and weaker generations of kids. Many people fault "Pottenger's Cats" for one reason or another, but the big picture looms large: feed animals or humans wrong and they quit breeding after a few generations. Will we wake up to this fact when there is a fertility clinic on every corner?
Regards,
Rex Harrill
(*) Someone mentioned sheep the size of ponies on this list the other day. I think they were saying that a particular area had such good soil that the animals grew to exceptional size. If the poster were to add that those animals NEVER had need of a vet (no disease, broken bones, etc), I would be most impressed. I'd also want to be growing my veggies there. _______________________________________________
BDNow mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can unsubscribe or change your options at:
http://lists.envirolink.org/mailman/listinfo/bdnow
_______________________________________________ BDNow mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] You can unsubscribe or change your options at: http://lists.envirolink.org/mailman/listinfo/bdnow
