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

No. This "theory" has long since been disproved, and is only repeated by fearmongers who want to
scare you into believing that you need to buy their supplements. Here are the facts:

1. Food analysis by nutrition researchers is very sophisticated. They can and do determine the
nutritional content of foods, down to the miniscule amounts of the "trace" minerals. No decrease
in nutrient content of foods has been reported in the seventy years that food analysis has been
performed.

2. Soil analysis by agriculture experts has also become comprehensive. The modern farmer knows what
is in his soils, and what is missing.

3. If a mineral was taken up by, say, green beans, fifty years ago, it was because the green bean
plant needed it for its own health. It wasn't collecting the mineral for the nutrition of humans.
If this mineral were now missing, the green bean would itself be deficient, and produce poor
yields of inferior beans. That just is not the case.

Conclusion: Eat your fruits and vegetables, and let the farmers worry about the nutrient
content of soils.

--Rich

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, vitaletherapeutics.orgvitaletherapeutics.orgOpen ↗

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.

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

In article <[email hidden]>,

Rich Shewmaker said:

"Kathryn Friesen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message 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. This "theory" has long since been disproved, and is only repeated by fearmongers who want to
scare you into believing that you need to buy their supplements. Here are the facts:

1. Food analysis by nutrition researchers is very sophisticated. They can and do determine the
nutritional content of foods, down to the miniscule amounts of the "trace" minerals. No decrease
in nutrient content of foods has been reported in the seventy years that food analysis has been
performed.

2. Soil analysis by agriculture experts has also become comprehensive. The modern farmer knows what
is in his soils, and what is missing.

As a side note, farmers can order fertilizer with any mixture of nutrients they desire. If they want
some extra minerals added, they can get it.

-- 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)

"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.

"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)

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" <[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

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. 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.

findarticles.comarticle.jhtmlOpen ↗ rm=

Quoted message said:

tinyurl.comz8b5Open ↗

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.

cnpp.usda.govfoodsupply09 99.pdfOpen ↗

--Rich

"Jan" <[email hidden]>..................

Quoted message said:

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

findarticles.comarticle.jhtmlOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

tinyurl.comz8b5Open ↗

This is the html version of the file nps.govA02.docOpen ↗.

kidspage?? cutting edge stuff Jan.

carabelli

(Jan) said:

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

Unable to research how your brain has been depleted eh Ja|\| ?

Typical.

WB
--

Take out the G'RBAGE to reply
[email hidden]

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

No.

Farmers use supplements to enrich the soil.

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Soil Depletion
From: "Marciosos5 Probertiosos5" [email hidden]
Date: 12/15/03 11:27 AM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Soil Depletion From: "Marciosos5 Probertiosos5" [email hidden] Date:
12/15/03 11:27 AM Eastern Standard Time Message-id:
<[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

Farmers use supplements to enrich the soil.

O.K., O.K., I have stopped laughing enough to type a reply.

As a farm kid, we used supplementation. It was called "cow [censored]" followed by N-P-K fertilizer.

What brand of supplements do farmers use today and how many tons per acre? That is, do they use one
a year, once a century, or any ole time supplements?

OL. C. PhD.

(Jan) said:

tinyurl.comz8b5Open ↗

Do stop your nonsense with fake-URLs !

nps.govA02.docOpen ↗ -->e:Czj4pRvHzGgJ:www.nps.gov/wefa/kidspage/word/A02.doc+how+the+soil+became+depleted+gov&hl=en&ie=UTF-
8

--> <quote> PLOUGHING FOR BUCKWHEAT by J. Alden Weir 1898, oil on canvas 48 1/2 x 33 3/4 inches
Carnegie Institute Museum of Art Pittsburgh, PA ConnecticutÂ’s Agricultural Past Growing Crops,
Marketing Crops, Common Farming Practices, Soil Types

SOCIAL STUDIES Social Studies Standard 2: Local, United States, and World History Social Studies
Standard 9: Places and Regions   Farming was central to the early New England colonies.  Colonists
needed to produce much of their own food to survive.  Connecticut's first two permanent European
settlements were established based on reports of fertile, flat soil just ten days journey from
Plymouth.  These two communities were Windsor, settled in 1633 and Wethersfield, settled in 1634,
both situated in Connecticut's hospitable central valley.  By 1675, most of the central valley was
settled and transformed into farmland.  Homesteads and small villages littered the open landscape. 
In fact, ninety-five percent of all Connecticut settlers lived and worked on farms.  Colonial
farmers learned a great deal from native Americans about farming practices.  The American Indians
were already using methods suited for the existing climate, soil types and native crops.  Although
their tools were generally crude bone or stone implements, Indian plant breeders successfully
contributed high-yielding corn and potatoes, beans, squash and tobacco to the settlers' tables. 
Most settlers came from cities and towns in Europe and had little agricultural experience of their
own.  Thus, Indian methods were readily adopted.  The settlers were also able to adapt European
technology as it became available which meant more advanced tools and the use of draft animals when
working fields.  Connecticut's coast was the next important agricultural area.  The soil along the
shore was also quite good; towns including Saybrook, New Haven, Guilford, Milford, Stratford,
Fairfield, Greenwich, and Stamford were settled within ten years of Windsor and Wethersfield.  In
addition to crops grown in other areas of the state, the coast's salt marshes and mud flats were a
source for tall salt-water cordgrass which was used as cattle fodder and roofing thatch, both
important products.  When settlers finally pushed east and west from the Connecticut central valley,
they found the land far more varied.  Colonial uplands farms were generally small (between 40 and 50
acres) but a great variety of crops were suited to the soil.  Wheat, corn, beans , flax, rapeseed,
oats and hemp were typical choices.  Apples and barley were also important sources for brewing cider
and beer.  Much is made of the rocky character of Connecticut's uplands, but farmers found the soil
itself quite fertile, and farms were generally very productive.  The stone walls that criss©cross
these regions were the work of many generations of farmers, clearing the fields of the most
intrusive rocks.  During the American Revolution, farmers began using cast iron parts on their
plows.  This increased efficiency greatly.  In 1797, a man named Charles Newbold patented the first
all-iron plow.  This meant only one man was needed to do the plowing, instead of the two or three
needed to drive a wooden plow.  Workers could be distributed over greater areas.     In Connecticut,
a variety of crops were important: onions, garden seeds, and perhaps most notably, tobacco.  The
tobacco industry was important to Connecticut.  Tobacco farming gave rise to two of the most
characteristic agricultural buildings in our state, the tobacco barn and white tobacco tents where
wrappers for cigars were grown in the shade, historically.  Connecticut tobacco was grown
exclusively for cigars, both wrappers and filler.  A good crop of tobacco yielded about 1,000 pounds
per acre.  One good worker could handle between 1,000 and 3,000 pounds of crop.  Connecticut tobacco
farms were often small in area.  As land value increased, labor and capital costs also escalated.
The introduction of composite cigar wrappers replaced the large shade-grown tobacco leaves produced
here, contributing further to the decline of tobacco production in Connecticut.  During the
nineteenth century, American farming saw great change.  Initially, European markets for American
goods grew.  With Western expansion, improved transportation and increasing urban centers,
commercial agriculture continued to expand.  Cotton farmers especially prospered.  As the century
progressed, the American farmer continued to find new markets. Trains made it possible to supply
more remote locations with goods.   Technology again helped farmers to produce more and reduce labor
costs. The population of the United States continued to expand rapidly, creating a continued demand
for more food and other crops.  Connecticut's farming peak came around 1860 when nearly every arable
acre of land within the state was in pasture or crops.  In fact, there was a shortage of farm land,
and an exodus of families out of the state began.  Additionally, the soil became depleted, and
needed a rest.  The decline of agriculture in Connecticut had begun.  Today, less than one percent
of Connecticut's residents farm the land and the majority of what we eat is imported into the
state.  It is not uncommon to find stone walls within forested areas now, areas that were once
farmland, abandoned and reclaimed by nature.  However, these walls, the common town greens in many
of our communities, and old farm buildings and tobacco barns are constant reminders of the
Connecticut's agrarian past and our changing use of the land even today.

Discussion questions for students
1. What types of crops were grown historically where you live? 
2. Are any crops still grown in your community?  If so, what types?  Are they similar to the
historic crops? 
3. Tobacco was an important product for Connecticut.  What types of products do we produce today in
Connecticut that have a national or international market? </quote>

That is ridiculous school stuff of a pre-scientific time, when the biology of soil was unknown.

Aribert Deckers
--
World Conference "Health Care Systems: Public and Private Management"

ariplex.comama p0.htmOpen ↗

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Soil Depletion From: "Marciosos5 Probertiosos5" [email hidden] Date:
12/15/03 11:27 AM Eastern Standard Time Message-id:
<[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Soil Depletion From: "Marciosos5 Probertiosos5" [email hidden] Date:
12/15/03 11:27 AM Eastern Standard Time Message-id:
<[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

Farmers use supplements to enrich the soil.

O.K., O.K., I have stopped laughing enough to type a reply.

As a farm kid, we used supplementation. It was called "cow [censored]" followed

by

Quoted message said:

N-P-K fertilizer.

What brand of supplements do farmers use today and how many tons per acre?

That

Quoted message said:

is, do they use one a year, once a century, or any ole time supplements?

There was a spammer who used this bogus argument about depleted soils. I asked him if it would be
preferable to supplement the growing process as fruits and vegetables taste better than some pill or
ghastly brew.

His response was that fertilizer is made up of chemicals. I pointed out that his supplements were
all chemicals.

He just never go the point.

BTW, I grow my own, and use some manure mixed with compost and chemical fertilizers. The neighbors
do not like the manure so much, but, they do enjoy the yield.