Soil Depletion

In article <[email hidden]>,

Kathryn Friesen said:

I've read one of the big reasons for eating organic and/or using a
itamin/supplement regimen is that the growing soil today outside of
organic farming just doesn't contain the minerals today that it did 50
or 100 years ago, and if it doesn't contain the minerals, the plant
won't get the minerals, then you won't get the minerals in your diet.
Does this make sense?

Not really, no. It would make sense if soils really were "depleted",
but they aren't. If they were, the plants wouldn't grow either.

Oh, it's sometimes true that the particular varieties of fruits and
veggies grown today may not be as nutritious, pound for pound, as
varieties grown some years ago -- the current ones have often been
bred for looks, not maximal nutrition. But the American diet is about
the same as a century ago in terms of nutrient intake.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

[email hidden] (Kathryn Friesen) wrote in news:6419-3FDBE6A3-281
@storefull-3134.bay.webtv.net:

Quoted message said:

I've read one of the big reasons for eating organic and/or using a
itamin/supplement regimen is that the growing soil today outside of
organic farming just doesn't contain the minerals today that it did 50
or 100 years ago, and if it doesn't contain the minerals, the plant
won't get the minerals, then you won't get the minerals in your diet.
Does this make sense?

No.

If the minerals weren't there, the plant would not grow and if it did grow
it certainly would be lacking in size, taste, etc. This is just more BS
from the wacko environmentalists. These are the same people who warned us
30 years ago that we would run out of oil in 10 years. Organic farming
has benefits, but added minerals or the inclusion of necessary ones aren't
one of them. The claim is a lie. Don't fall for it.

r

--
Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.

Kathryn Friesen said:

I've read one of the big reasons for eating organic and/or using a
itamin/supplement regimen is that the growing soil today outside of
organic farming just doesn't contain the minerals today that it did 50
or 100 years ago, and if it doesn't contain the minerals, the plant
won't get the minerals, then you won't get the minerals in your diet.
Does this make sense?

Yes, to the extent that chemical fertilizing and use of other chemical
products tends to destroy the complementary relationships that exist in
a biodiverse environment. There are indications that "mono-culture"
farming can negate or destroy the complex relationships that contribute
in myriad ways to a symbiotic ecosystem. What impact this has on the
overall availabilty of nutrients, in terms of facilitating enzymes or
other factors, is not known to the same degree of certainty as, for
example, the iron content of a typical vegetable like the carrot. The
fact that pesticide and herbicide residues can be present also can
inhibit or impair the assimilation of nutritients in foods grown in
contact with such toxic compounds. Another factor is the extent of
environmental contamination present in the food, or even the person
consuming the food. Metal toxins in particular can have a drastic effect
upon hormone production, metabolism, immunity, digestion, and even
mental health. In general, the notion of prevention versus cure is
probably far more significant now than it was in the past, due to the
prevalence of industrial pollutants worldwide, so the "ounce" may well
be worth far more than the pound of yesteryear...

--
_o Kristofer Dale,
_ \<,_ ragged individualist,
_____( )/ ( )_____ statistic at large...

p.s. Learn and live, http://www.vitaletherapeutics.org

Quoted message said:

Subject: Soil Depletion
From: [email hidden] (Kathryn Friesen)
Date: 12/13/03 11:27 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I've read one of the big reasons for eating organic and/or using a
itamin/supplement regimen is that the growing soil today outside of
organic farming just doesn't contain the minerals today that it did 50
or 100 years ago, and if it doesn't contain the minerals, the plant
won't get the minerals, then you won't get the minerals in your diet.
Does this make sense?

It makes perfect sense.

What you are talking about is termed "permaculture." Adding minerals back to
the soil to make it truly fertile again has been researched and studied for
years.

The quality, or lack of quality, is measured by the USDA and is published
yearly. The nutritive value of our foods has diminished greatly based upon
their numbers.

The next great war may well be triggered by a famine.

Dr. C. PhD.

"DRCEEPHD" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Soil Depletion
From: [email hidden] (Kathryn Friesen)
Date: 12/13/03 11:27 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I've read one of the big reasons for eating organic and/or using a
itamin/supplement regimen is that the growing soil today outside of
organic farming just doesn't contain the minerals today that it did 50
or 100 years ago, and if it doesn't contain the minerals, the plant
won't get the minerals, then you won't get the minerals in your diet.
Does this make sense?

It makes perfect sense.

What you are talking about is termed "permaculture." Adding minerals back

to

Quoted message said:

the soil to make it truly fertile again has been researched and studied

for

Quoted message said:

years.

The quality, or lack of quality, is measured by the USDA and is published
yearly. The nutritive value of our foods has diminished greatly based

upon

Quoted message said:

their numbers.

[censored]! Show me the numbers. --Rich

Quoted message said:

The next great war may well be triggered by a famine.

Dr. C. PhD.

I saw something to that effect at an internet site where it was claimed
that per a 1975 US Department of Agriculture booklet & what numbers they
publish now, there has been a decrease. What they didn't say was how
the fruits & produce were tested in 1975. If they were "field-tested"
back then & now they test pursuant to how ordinary people actually
purchase their produce (ususally at a grocery store or produce market or
even a health food store with a produce section maybe days or even weeks
after picking), I would imagine there would be a nutritional decrease.

I wonder how much rigorous "soil testing" was going on in 1892 in all
those continents? How would they know?

"Kathryn Friesen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I wonder how much rigorous "soil testing" was going on in 1892 in all
those continents? How would they know?

Good point! In the mid-nineteenth century, it was common for farmers to
"farm out" their land, and then just move farther west to a new farm. The
land was thought unlimited at the time. They've gotten smarter, and soil
fertility management is now the norm. Many farms now have soil more fertile
than it was when the virgin sod was first plowed.

--Rich

In article <[email hidden]>,

Kathryn Friesen said:

I saw something to that effect at an internet site where it was claimed
that per a 1975 US Department of Agriculture booklet & what numbers they
publish now, there has been a decrease. What they didn't say was how
the fruits & produce were tested in 1975. If they were "field-tested"
back then & now they test pursuant to how ordinary people actually
purchase their produce (ususally at a grocery store or produce market or
even a health food store with a produce section maybe days or even weeks
after picking), I would imagine there would be a nutritional decrease.

There would indeed, but I think they must have been using the same
methodology. Though if I were USDA, I'd be using random samples of
produce from grocery stores, as this would be far more representative
of what people are actually eating (which is what you want to know).

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

"Jan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

< commercial hype and advertising lies deleted >

Jan, the fertility of soils is a scientific subject. You cannot get reliable
scientific information from commercial advertising.

--Rich

In article <[email hidden]>,

Kathryn Friesen said:

I wonder how much rigorous "soil testing" was going on in 1892 in all
those continents? How would they know?

Good point. Though chemistry wasn't so terribly underdeveloped then.
(I had to go back and read the Jan Drew trash you were responding to
in order to figure out your question.)

Bear in mind that Jan's "sources" on that gibberish included were a
guy who sells mineral supplements, and a rather looney 1936 article
from a magazine that was reprinted as a "Senate Document."

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

Jan the Accuser said:

http://doctorwallach.com/depletion.html

Depletion of Soils

1992 Earth Summit statistics indicate that the mineral content of the world's
farm and range soil has decreased dramatically.

The most notorious colloidal mineral promoter is Joel D. Wallach,
DVM, ND, who says that Americans desperately need his
minerals. Wallach has a long history of involvement in dubious
healthcare schemes, such laetrile treatment for cancer, as well as
chelation and hydrogen peroxide therapies for coronary artery
disease. He has also hosted an AM radio talk show in San
Diego titled "Let's Play Doctor" and briefly plied naturopathy
at Kurt Donsbach's Hospital Santa Monica. His widely
distributed "Dead Doctors Don't Lie!" audiotape [4] quotes
from U.S. Senate Document 264:

[Erosion and unwise farming methods] have led to mineral-
depleted soils resulting in mineral-deficient plants,
livestock, and people . . . . .the alarming fact is that food
now being raised on millions of acres of land that no
longer contain enough of certain minerals are starving us
-- no matter how much of them we eat. No man of today
can eat enough fruits and vegetables to supply his system
with the minerals he requires for perfect health because
his stomach isn't big enough to hold them. . . . Laboratory
tests prove that the fruit, vegetables, grains, eggs, and
even the milk and meats of today are not what they were
a few generations ago. . . . It is bad news to learn from
our leading authorities that 99% of the American people
are deficient in these minerals [74th Congress, 2nd
Session, 1936].

The cited quotation is genuine, but it did not, as colloidal mineral
promoters usually imply, arise from a government research
study. In fact, it is merely a reprint of a baseless opinion piece
that originally appeared in the June 1936 issue of Cosmopolitan
magazine and was placed into the Congressional record by a
Florida senator [5]. Most Americans are not slowly starving to
death or dying from mineral deficiency.

This was quoted from a longer article at:
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/DSH/colloidalminerals.html

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Soil Depletion
From: [email hidden] (David Wright)
Date: 12/14/2003 2:33 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

In article <[email hidden]>,

Kathryn Friesen said:

I wonder how much rigorous "soil testing" was going on in 1892 in all
those continents? How would they know?

Good point. Though chemistry wasn't so terribly underdeveloped then.
(I had to go back and read the Jan Drew trash you were responding to
in order to figure out your question.)

Bear in mind that Jan's "sources" on that gibberish included were a
guy who sells mineral supplements, and a rather looney 1936 article
from a magazine that was reprinted as a "Senate Document."

Bear in mind, this is an orgey answer.

OM puts forth this mosinformation because they are in bed with chemical
companies, and put down supplements.

Feel free to look up how the soil has been depleted.

http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m1132/n3_v50/21031831/p7/article.jhtml?term=

http://tinyurl.com/z8b5

Jan

Thanks for hat Quackwatch article & info on Dr.Wallach.

I particularly found the average age of doctors dying as "58" amusing.
Reading obits is a minor hobby of mine, dating back to my first job in a
bank trust department, where I got paid to do so,

It has always occurred to me the longevity that physicians endure. With
rare exceptions health-wise & accidents such as physicians getting in
the way of such things as mountain climbing avalanches (no, that doesn't
make logical sense, but oh well), I'm always surprised when the good
doctor passes on before age 80. Not one of my half-dozen physicians
died before that age, one even reaching almost 90. Maybe it only
happens in California.

Jan: Why are you sending us to other sites? Weren't your first
recommended sites any good?

"Jan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Soil Depletion
From: [email hidden] (David Wright)
Date: 12/14/2003 2:33 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

In article <[email hidden]>,

Kathryn Friesen said:

I wonder how much rigorous "soil testing" was going on in 1892 in all
those continents? How would they know?

Good point. Though chemistry wasn't so terribly underdeveloped then.
(I had to go back and read the Jan Drew trash you were responding to
in order to figure out your question.)

Bear in mind that Jan's "sources" on that gibberish included were a
guy who sells mineral supplements, and a rather looney 1936 article
from a magazine that was reprinted as a "Senate Document."

Bear in mind, this is an orgey answer.

OM puts forth this mosinformation because they are in bed with chemical
companies, and put down supplements.

Feel free to look up how the soil has been depleted.

http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m1132/n3_v50/21031831/p7/article.jhtml?te
rm=

Quoted message said:

http://tinyurl.com/z8b5

Jan

Feel free to learn to read for content, Jan. Neither of these linked
articles has anything whatsoever to do with the fertility of soils today or
the nutritional content of foods. The first is about Karl Marx's concerns
about urbanization of the population and breaking "the cycle of fertility"
of Britain's soils, and the second is about the depletion of the soils of
Connecticut by tobacco growing in the eighteenth century.

The real issue here is the nutrients available in foods. This link addresses
that issue directly, and come from a source that is not trying to sell you
anything.

http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/Pubs/Food%20Supply/foodsupply09_99.pdf

--Rich

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Soil Depletion
From: [email hidden] (Kathryn Friesen)
Date: 12/14/2003 4:25 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

Jan: Why are you sending us to other sites? Weren't your first
recommended sites any good?

They are all good and many. Want more?

Jan

(Jan) said:

Most likely the above mentioned article was based on the following document:

Senate Document No. 264, 1936

The truth being a stranger to Joel Wallach, things were exactly
backwards to what he says. Senate Document #264 was a reprint of the
Cosmopolitan article.

http://www.geocities.com/wallachism/senate.html

--
Peter Bowditch
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
The Green Light http://www.ratbags.com/greenlight
and The New Improved Quintessence of the Loon with added Vitamins and C-Q10 http://www.ratbags.com/loon
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Soil Depletion
From: Peter Bowditch [email hidden]
Date: 12/14/2003 5:07 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

(Jan) said:

Most likely the above mentioned article was based on the following document:

Senate Document No. 264, 1936

The truth being a stranger to Joel Wallach

I think you meant Peter Bowditch.