I agree
But "Soils depleted for sure" [ Depleted of what/where/when ? ] says that
something was proven, then the evidence presented has to do with declining
blood levels of minerals which may or may not have anything to do with the
subject. [Most likely not. Most likely modern food processing and eating
habits ]
It's the old 'support a fable by bait and switch'.
Are blue bloods really blue and is that because they ate with silverware
and got Agyria? Well, that's the LEAST likely scenerio and subsequent
popularity of plated silverware doesn't support the premise one iota.
There's this conception that people used to know more, lived longer and
were more healthy. It simply isn't true.
The fact is that people who would have died in childhood back then now
live even longer than those who didn't.
..a LOT longer.
Genetic defects may be on the rise because of that, but earlier
fatalities aren't, even so.
If the state of farming tech 80-100 years ago is any indication, no one
tested soils or foods back then in any meaningful way. It "appears" that
sort of thing started in the 1940s and became common in the late fifties
and early sixties.
Really now, how many capable laboratories even existed in the
1700s-1800s? Name one? Is 5 enough?
Here's something I'll believe to some degree. Both sides are represented
covering a time period that can be documented. [however scantily ]
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=10587
4) ESSENTIAL VITAMINS AND MINERALS
UK and US government statistics indicate that levels of trace minerals in
fruit and vegetables fell by up to 76% between 1940 and 1991. 34,35 In
contrast there is growing evidence that organic fruit and vegetables
generally contain more nutrients than non-organic food.
[OK, now what about 2006 compared to 1991, or even 1980 to 1991? Are the
abysmal practices of the 40s shading the 1940 to 1991 results?]
The Soil Association conducted a systematic review of the evidence
comparing the vitamin and mineral content of organic and conventionally
grown food. It was found that, on average, organic food contains higher
levels of vitamin C and essential minerals such as calcium, magnesium, iron
and chromium. 36
An independent review of the evidence found that organic crops had
significantly higher levels of all 21 nutrients analysed compared with
conventional produce including vitamin C (27% more), magnesium (29% more),
iron (21% more) and phosphorous (14% more). Organic spinach, lettuce,
cabbage and potatoes showed particularly high levels of minerals.
[But doesn't say "why". Is it because soils are depleted of minerals or
because pesticides are changing absorption? Is it different plant strains
being grown or GMF?...doesn't say. Then, how much do I really need? If
27% less is enough, then that's enough and the rest gets peed out. So
what? I eaten that stuff most all my life and feel just fine. ]
Another question could be, does a plant absorb minerals for it or for you?
Even if "yield per acre" is the only concern, the 60s also saw the green
revolution where maxing yields became a matter for science to study
intensely and an government supported Agribiz infrastructure that can
afford, organize and collate the testing started becoming dominant.
"Organic Farming" had it's first roots in the 1920s but didn't become a
conscious movement till the 70s after the DDT fiasco.
Before all that, everything, responsible and conscious or not, was done
by default or slash and burn tradition where many farmers just moved on to
cut down another forest or till up another hunk of prairie. [They ran out
of forest, which is WHY they hit the dryer prairies and made them into a
dust bowl.]
Back then, [since the 1400s] many farmers used potash to achieve a
result [ie 'yield' ] but didn't know why. All they knew was that burning
down a forest produces ashes and got a good yield...an accidental discovery
from getting the field to start with. Today they still use it on both
sides of technique issues and know exactly why.
Organic farming is not "old", it's relatively brand new that borrows from
the old.
Big "Natural" Supplement and Big "Chemical" Pharma are two sides of the
same max sales BS coin. Neither can be trusted to tell the truth. [often
owned by the same people]
Agribiz and organic farming will eventually meet in the middle. Both
contribute hows and whys. How not and why not, counts.
Sustainable sales/profits is the common goal running on demonstrations
and documentations of facts. [one of which is a natural human
trait...resistance to change ]
One side sells good and the other sells cheap, but sales is the common
denominator and both are out to yank your belief chain.
Virtually every fact is discovered by examining why something didn't
work. Errors are inevitable. The "old" ways didn't work well enough...if
they had, nothing would have changed. The newer ways need changing and
have been from the start.
They do have a ways to go still, but ANYTHING new is by definition, an
unknown and knowing that you don't know takes time to become obvious.
Minerals aside, I personally think that organic is better enough for a
number of other reasons to pay the price.
I'm not required to put agribiz down to make a daily decision. I don't
need an enemy to kick to pick a path by attraction.
THAT is how farm practices actually change. [Your dollar does it because
your dollar IS their dollar, every time, without exception]
If what you want isn't available, it's your investment in time, effort,
study and support that makes it available.
Spending energy on what others aren't doing takes energy away from what
you want to do. If you have a better idea, get busy and start leading from
the front instead of breaking a sweat kicking an ignorant ass [mule] from
behind.
I mean, just GO and leave it standing there wondering where you
went. No need to lug a mule around. Huh?
Enemies just argue endlessly and distort issues beyond recognition. They
'create' problems that distract, not solve.
"You should" is world away from "I will".
Ode
At 11:10 AM 8/6/2006 +0005, you wrote:
Look, the chemists who measured mineral content in soils and produce 80
to 100 years ago were not clueless noobs. The assays they could run
might not be as quick or precise as modern, technologically advanced
methods, but they worked quite reliably. They were more labor
intensive, certainly.
Analyses of samples of modern produce should be comparable to "typical"
samples from a few generations ago, especially if the differences are
factors of 5 or more. No sampling or testing errors are going to
invalidate *all* significance from such results.
So, what are the numbers? Does the green pepper I buy in the grocery
store today have one tenth the trace mineral content that the one my
grandmother bought did? How does it compare with the one I grow
organically in the garden? It ought not require 10 screens of dithering
to say what does or doesn't measure up.
If the evidence is out there, I'm going to listen to it.
Be well,
Mike D.
[Mike Devour, Citizen, Patriot, Libertarian]
[[email protected] ]
[Speaking only for myself... ]
--
The Silver List is a moderated forum for discussing Colloidal Silver.
Instructions for unsubscribing are posted at: http://silverlist.org
To post, address your message to: [email protected]
Address Off-Topic messages to: [email protected]
The Silver List and Off Topic List archives are currently down...
List maintainer: Mike Devour <[email protected]>
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.7/410 - Release Date: 8/5/2006
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.7/410 - Release Date: 8/5/2006
