In article ,
"songbird" wrote:

Billy wrote:
...
-------

So that is what we were talking about, this crazy organic gardening
thing. You know, the way in which all food was grown before 1945.

false. some food was grown
organically pre 1945, but much
of the rest of it was grown in a
kind of slow motion slash and
burn agriculture. the slash and burn
was not tropical forests, but the
result is still the same, the topsoil
is used up in many places and
there is no cheap fix.

1) Is this some kind of fuzzy idea, or just another brain fart?
Are you confusing organic with sustainable? Are there any man made
chemicals used in your slash and burn agriculture? If, not, it was
organic.

have you made any claims about
pre-history and sustainabilty?
When did the conversation become sustainability? Again, commercial
factory agriculture isn't sustainable, because at some point we will run
out of fossil fuels (non-sustainable), if we don't die from the heat and
H2S first.
other
than your general waving of the word
organic at it, but i suspect that much
of what you think about pre-history
isn't accurate either.
Again, judgement without facts. It comes second nature to you.
With small populations, hunter-gathering was sustainable.
http://www.environnement.ens.fr/pers.../mistake_jared
_diamond.pdf
As to other cultures of pre-history, which one used man-made
fertilizers, or pesticides, hmmm?

i'll admit i don't
know either.
I think you'll find general agreement to that statement.


So now you propose that eating the way we did before 1945, and reaping
the benefit of flavonoids as we did before 1945 is some kind of
"organic religion".

it is if science eventually shows that
the pathways that flavonoids take in
the body are not universally beneficial
then my point is valid. i mentioned the
liver in specific because it is vital to
any debate about nutritional health
and various effects from different
sources.

also, there is such a thing as too
much of a substance not being a
good thing. folic acid, vitamin A,
copper, selenium, iron, and many
others, required in small amounts,
but beyond that amount possibly
toxic. what makes you think that
flavonoids escape that type of problem?
do they flush out of the body without
any cellular intervention -- does the
liver not have to regulate them or
their byproducts? i'll admit i don't
know, i'm not sure the science is in
on them completely. or at least i
would be very surprised if any
reputable scientist says they are a
100% solved item. there's much we
still do not know.
You know, if you could make a statement instead of wandering off into
sophistry, this would be a discussion, instead of theater of the absurd.
Since falvonoids exist in all plants (not counting fungi) that we eat,
where is the incidence of excess consumption, hmmmm?

While Wikipedia may not be perfect, it is sufficient for a citation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavonoid

Flavonoid

Biological roles
They also protect plants from attacks by microbes, fungi[3] and insects.
(When plants are grown with pesticides, flavonoids are less necessary,
and fewer are produced. Parentheses mine)

Potential for biological activity
Flavonoids (specifically flavanoids such as the catechins) are "the most
common group of polyphenolic compounds in the human diet and are found
ubiquitously in plants".[4] Flavonols, the original bioflavonoids such
as quercetin, are also found ubiquitously, but in lesser quantities.
Both sets of compounds have evidence of health-modulating effects in
animals which eat them.
The widespread distribution of flavonoids, their variety and their
relatively low toxicity compared to other active plant compounds (for
instance alkaloids) mean that many animals, including humans, ingest
significant quantities in their diet. Resulting from experimental
evidence that they may modify allergens, viruses, and carcinogens,
flavonoids have potential to be biological "response modifiers", such as
anti-allergic, anti-inflammatory,[5] anti-microbial[6] and anti-cancer
activities shown from in vitro studies.[7]

Antioxidant activity in vitro
Flavonoids (both flavonols and flavanols) are most commonly known for
their antioxidant activity in vitro.
(I'll let you look up free radicle. Parentheses mine)




----

Then on Mon, 28 Jun 2010 23:53:45, I try to show carbon sequestration
in the soil, in part by describing the flora and fauna found in good
garden soil,

your effort failed, most people
agree with me that healthy garden
soil does not sequester carbon, for
the most part it cycles it.

In the sense that there is more carbon in garden soil than in
impoverished, commercial, factory-farming soil, where there is next to
none? Even you should be able to understand that.

if you want to argue that changing
poor soils to better sequesters carbon
then i'll give you that,
How gallant of you.
but that is still a
small and limited amount compared
to what is actually needed. and then,
eventually the poor soil improves to
the point where it mostly cycles carbon
again, but it is not the same degree
of carbon sink as compared to a forest.
but even the mature forest will be a
relatively carbon neutral cycle.

As compared to a prairie?


note: there were some interesting
hints in the literature i scanned about
some sequestration by certain bacteria
in soil that already had charcoal/char/etc
in it, but i'm not sure this is a phenomena
that will be repeatable world wide. it
might require tropical jungle conditions
with a certain level of moisture or some
other factors not very transferrable. i.e.
the science is still out on this. a small
glimmer there from what i've seen so far.
i'm always looking for more such hints
of hope.

I'm glad you read the material I posted, I was thinking it was a
complete waste of electrons.

I repeat. You are either very dense or a troll.

most often i'm amused, but whatever makes
you happy.

Trust me. You wouldn't be.


songbird

I fear I've strained your brain by going to what "MAY" be the next step
in our understanding of nutrition, "flavoniods", so let me back up and
just direct that ADHA little mind of yours to the citations below,
comparing organic and contemporary commercial (factory farmed) produce.

http://www.rawfoodexplained.com/the-...e-against-comm
ercially-grown-foods.html



http://www.plantmanagementnetwork.org/pub/cm/symposium/organics/delate/

http://www.rawfoodlife.com/Articles_...commercial_foo
d/organic_vs_commercial_food.htm

http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/107555301750164244

http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/susagri/susagri018.htm

http://www.ota.com/organic/benefits/nutrition.html

http://www.organixentral.co.uk/rutgers.html

Let me add, that this exchange isn't for you, but for others who may
read it. The conversation shows your lack of authoritative support by
the lack of citations, and the sophistry of your arguments, e.g.
referring to earthworms as an invasive species in a discussion about
gardening.

Happy trolling.
--
- Billy
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Arn3lF5XSUg
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/6/2...al_crime_scene