Hello,

I just joined this site because of a lot of research I've done in nutrient deficiencies among the 'civilized' areas of the world. What I've found out, is that the majority of the foods that are grown today are severely deficient in what a normal healthy human needs. The main reason behind this is the type of soil being used to grow foods.
Artificial things mostly. The soil is able to grow things BIG and FAST, but they are lacking the vitamins and minerals we need, because this soil isn't as good for our food as natural soil is.
The so-called 3rd world countries use no fertlizers that aren't 100% natural, and no extra additives to the soil that could be absorbed by the food. These cultures have better overall health, don't have the same types of diseases that we get, and are thinner, with lower blood pressure, and live longer. They're thinking this is something as simple as vitamin/mineral deficiency in the soil that our Farmers use to grow the food we typically buy at the Supermarkets.
So, what I'm asking you all is where can I look for good natural soil to grow food in? If testing, what should I be looking for in these tests? I'm wanting to start to grow hopefully the majority of the food I eat one day. I live in New Mexico, so good soil is probably hard to come by.

Any suggestions?

"BRD" wrote in message
...

Hello,

I just joined this site because of a lot of research I've done in
nutrient deficiencies among the 'civilized' areas of the world. What
I've found out, is that the majority of the foods that are grown today
are severely deficient in what a normal healthy human needs. The main
reason behind this is the type of soil being used to grow foods.
Artificial things mostly. The soil is able to grow things BIG and
FAST, but they are lacking the vitamins and minerals we need, because
this soil isn't as good for our food as natural soil is.

Hmm, I don't know where to start. First of all, si there some scientific
evidence of food lacking in vitamins and minerals? And by how much.

Secondly, all soil is natural of course. Farmers rotate crops so that soil
can be "refurbished" through green manures.

Thirdly, the 3rd world countries you talk of are usually starving because
their crops aren't big enough. So would you have less nutritious food, or
less food?


The so-called 3rd world countries use no fertlizers that aren't 100%
natural, and no extra additives to the soil that could be absorbed by
the food. These cultures have better overall health, don't have the
same types of diseases that we get, and are thinner, with lower blood
pressure, and live longer. They're thinking this is something as simple
as vitamin/mineral deficiency in the soil that our Farmers use to grow
the food we typically buy at the Supermarkets.
So, what I'm asking you all is where can I look for good natural soil
to grow food in?



If testing, what should I be looking for in these
tests? I'm wanting to start to grow hopefully the majority of the food
I eat one day. I live in New Mexico, so good soil is probably hard to
come by.

Any suggestions?


--
BRD

look in your compost bin.

On 9/5/05 1:34 PM, in article ,
"FDR" wrote:


"BRD" wrote in message
...

Hello,

I just joined this site because of a lot of research I've done in
nutrient deficiencies among the 'civilized' areas of the world. What
I've found out, is that the majority of the foods that are grown today
are severely deficient in what a normal healthy human needs. The main
reason behind this is the type of soil being used to grow foods.
Artificial things mostly. The soil is able to grow things BIG and
FAST, but they are lacking the vitamins and minerals we need, because
this soil isn't as good for our food as natural soil is.

Hmm, I don't know where to start. First of all, si there some scientific
evidence of food lacking in vitamins and minerals? And by how much.

Secondly, all soil is natural of course. Farmers rotate crops so that soil
can be "refurbished" through green manures.

Thirdly, the 3rd world countries you talk of are usually starving because
their crops aren't big enough. So would you have less nutritious food, or
less food?

As a hydroponic hobby grower, I can testify that any vitamins and most of
what you would call minerals is totally lacking in my nutrient except as
contamination. Nevertheless, I would willingly compare one of my tomatoes
against the best "organic" tomato you have. That said, there are essential
elements required for most plants.

My nutrient solution provides plenty of the required elements, viz.

Hydrogen
Oxygen
Nitrogen
Potassium
Phosphorous
Carbon (although primarily from the air)

are required in large amounts.

Lesser amounts are required of

Sulfur
Calcium
Magnesium
Iron
Chlorine.

Trace amounts of

Manganese
Boron
Zinc
Copper
Molybdenum.

Some plants may need other elements like aluminum or cobalt, or even nickel.

In most cases, my guess is that soil will be short of calcium and magnesium.
They are needed in quantities large enough to require replenishment while
not available in cheap fertilizer. While magnesium, from Epsom salt may be
safely added in reasonable quantity, large amounts of boron or copper can
poison the soil.

Bill

I add kelp meal and rock dust to my garden along with plenty of compost and
an organic fertilizer mix. Try these links:

http://www.remineralize.org/
http://www.westsidegardener.com/howto/fertilizer.html
(I use his formula with the addition of 1 part glacial rock dust.)
http://www.biodynamics.com/steiner.html

Good Luck,
LJ

"BRD" wrote in message
...

Hello,

I just joined this site because of a lot of research I've done in
nutrient deficiencies among the 'civilized' areas of the world. What
I've found out, is that the majority of the foods that are grown today
are severely deficient in what a normal healthy human needs. The main
reason behind this is the type of soil being used to grow foods.
Artificial things mostly. The soil is able to grow things BIG and
FAST, but they are lacking the vitamins and minerals we need, because
this soil isn't as good for our food as natural soil is.
The so-called 3rd world countries use no fertlizers that aren't 100%
natural, and no extra additives to the soil that could be absorbed by
the food. These cultures have better overall health, don't have the
same types of diseases that we get, and are thinner, with lower blood
pressure, and live longer. They're thinking this is something as simple
as vitamin/mineral deficiency in the soil that our Farmers use to grow
the food we typically buy at the Supermarkets.
So, what I'm asking you all is where can I look for good natural soil
to grow food in? If testing, what should I be looking for in these
tests? I'm wanting to start to grow hopefully the majority of the food
I eat one day. I live in New Mexico, so good soil is probably hard to
come by.

Any suggestions?


--
BRD

"BRD" wrote in message
...

Hello,

I just joined this site because of a lot of research I've done in
nutrient deficiencies among the 'civilized' areas of the world. What
I've found out, is that the majority of the foods that are grown today
are severely deficient in what a normal healthy human needs. The main
reason behind this is the type of soil being used to grow foods

In your research where is this claim supported? Please cite a few
references.

What are these things that humans need that are not in the majority of
foods?

David

While I think some of that is psuedo-science and from the mindset that
organic-is-ALWAYS-better, like pot is a better drug cause it is
"organic".

You only need to look closely at a natural environment to see what
nature does. Wild Plant life perpetuates a cycle of replenishment.
Animals and especially BUGS particpate and are critical to that cycle.
Including good and bad bugs. The squirrels and birds of the forest
don't consciously rake manure into the forest floor. If I were to boil
it down to the most simplistic I would have to say focus on diversity.
Dvierse sources of renourishment. Diverse plants, Diverse bugs.
COmmercial growers have vast problems cause miles of corn provide
miles of food for corn pests, and nothing for bugs that don't eat
corn. Diversity is totally lacking. Use multiple sources of
fertilizers, not all are chemically the same. Yes nitrogen is
nitrogen, but you don't shake nitrogen onto the dirt, it is bound up
in another molecules. How it breaks down, what is required to release
it, what byproduct are left afterward have an affect. You could read
articles for years and still not know everything. I think, go with the
odds, mix it up. Whenever I see new and different bugs in the back
yard I consider it a success. You need that variety. SOme are bad some
are good. You need both.


BRD wrote:


Hello,

I just joined this site because of a lot of research I've done in
nutrient deficiencies among the 'civilized' areas of the world. What
I've found out, is that the majority of the foods that are grown today
are severely deficient in what a normal healthy human needs. The main
reason behind this is the type of soil being used to grow foods.
Artificial things mostly. The soil is able to grow things BIG and
FAST, but they are lacking the vitamins and minerals we need, because
this soil isn't as good for our food as natural soil is.
The so-called 3rd world countries use no fertlizers that aren't 100%
natural, and no extra additives to the soil that could be absorbed by
the food. These cultures have better overall health, don't have the
same types of diseases that we get, and are thinner, with lower blood
pressure, and live longer. They're thinking this is something as simple
as vitamin/mineral deficiency in the soil that our Farmers use to grow
the food we typically buy at the Supermarkets.
So, what I'm asking you all is where can I look for good natural soil
to grow food in? If testing, what should I be looking for in these
tests? I'm wanting to start to grow hopefully the majority of the food
I eat one day. I live in New Mexico, so good soil is probably hard to
come by.

Any suggestions?

DiGiTAL ViNYL (no email)
Zone 6b/7, Westchester Co, NY, 1 mile off L.I.Sound
3rd year gardener
http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/royalf...=/2055&.src=ph

In article ,
BRD wrote:

Hello,

I just joined this site because of a lot of research I've done in
nutrient deficiencies among the 'civilized' areas of the world. What
I've found out, is that the majority of the foods that are grown today
are severely deficient in what a normal healthy human needs. The main
reason behind this is the type of soil being used to grow foods.
Artificial things mostly. The soil is able to grow things BIG and
FAST, but they are lacking the vitamins and minerals we need, because
this soil isn't as good for our food as natural soil is.
The so-called 3rd world countries use no fertlizers that aren't 100%
natural, and no extra additives to the soil that could be absorbed by
the food. These cultures have better overall health, don't have the
same types of diseases that we get, and are thinner, with lower blood
pressure, and live longer. They're thinking this is something as simple
as vitamin/mineral deficiency in the soil that our Farmers use to grow
the food we typically buy at the Supermarkets.
So, what I'm asking you all is where can I look for good natural soil
to grow food in? If testing, what should I be looking for in these
tests? I'm wanting to start to grow hopefully the majority of the food
I eat one day. I live in New Mexico, so good soil is probably hard to
come by.

The only scientific studies that I've seen that support this idea relate
more to the plants' responses to insects and (possibly) disease
organisms. Apparently some of the phytochemicals that are beneficial
to us are produced to repel or otherwise thwart, repel, or otherwise
ward off parasitic organisms. In these studies, the "organically grown"
plants were more subject to direct attack than the plants that were
protected by various pesticides; the latter plants had no need to produce
some nutritionally beneficial phytochemicals. Sorry I don't have the
references readily available...

While I haven't done an extensive search, I don't know of any scientically
valid studies that show that nutrient densities are enhanced in organically
enriched soil. If someone knows of some (or studies that counter this
hypothesis), please post the references!

-frank
--

The only scientific studies that I've seen that support this idea relate
more to the plants' responses to insects and (possibly) disease
organisms. Apparently some of the phytochemicals that are beneficial
to us are produced to repel or otherwise thwart, repel, or otherwise
ward off parasitic organisms. In these studies, the "organically grown"
plants were more subject to direct attack than the plants that were
protected by various pesticides; the latter plants had no need to produce
some nutritionally beneficial phytochemicals. Sorry I don't have the
references readily available...

While I haven't done an extensive search, I don't know of any scientically
valid studies that show that nutrient densities are enhanced in organically
enriched soil. If someone knows of some (or studies that counter this
hypothesis), please post the references!

-frank
--[/quote]

Despite the best efforts of the fledgling pharmaceuticals and medical 'science' in general to belittle the problems, by the nineteen thirties it had become obvious to most Americans that something was seriously amiss with their soils, with their crops, and with their rapidly deteriorating personal health. During the 2nd Session of the 74th Congress in 1936, the United States Senate published Document #264, which really laid the problems facing American nutrition on the line. Verbatim extracts from Document 264 are provided at the bottom of this page, but for the specific purposes of this report, here are the three most important paragraphs.
"The alarming fact is that foods [fruits, vegetables and grains] 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."
"The truth is that our foods vary enormously in value, and some of them aren't worth eating as food...Our physical well-being is more directly dependent upon the minerals we take into our systems than upon calories or vitamins or upon the precise proportions of starch, protein or carbohydrates we consume."
"It is bad news to learn from our leading authorities that 99% of the American people are deficient in these minerals, and that a marked deficiency in any one of the more important minerals actually results in disease. Any upset of the balance, any considerable lack or one or another element, however microscopic the body requirement may be, and we sicken, suffer, shorten our lives."
So sixty-eight years ago, the American Government knew full well the problems facing the people, but the stuffed-shirt medical fraternity did absolutely nothing to help. In fact, driven ever onwards by the extravagant fiscal needs of pharmaceutical shareholders, medical 'science' and its subordinate doctors stood reality on its ear, and proceeded to steadily undermine what little good health the general community had left.

"BRD" wrote in message
...

The only scientific studies that I've seen that support this idea
relate
more to the plants' responses to insects and (possibly) disease
organisms. Apparently some of the phytochemicals that are beneficial
to us are produced to repel or otherwise thwart, repel, or otherwise
ward off parasitic organisms. In these studies, the "organically
grown"
plants were more subject to direct attack than the plants that were
protected by various pesticides; the latter plants had no need to
produce
some nutritionally beneficial phytochemicals. Sorry I don't have the
references readily available...

While I haven't done an extensive search, I don't know of any
scientically
valid studies that show that nutrient densities are enhanced in
organically
enriched soil. If someone knows of some (or studies that counter this
hypothesis), please post the references!

-frank
--

Despite the best efforts of the fledgling pharmaceuticals and medical
'science' in general to belittle the problems, by the nineteen thirties
it had become obvious to most Americans that something was seriously
amiss with their soils, with their crops, and with their rapidly
deteriorating personal health. During the 2nd Session of the 74th
Congress in 1936, the United States Senate published Document #264, which
really laid the problems facing American nutrition on the line. Verbatim
extracts from Document 264 are provided at the bottom of this page, but
for the specific purposes of this report, here are the three most
important paragraphs.
"The alarming fact is that foods [fruits, vegetables and
grains] 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."
"The truth is that our foods vary enormously in value, and
some of them aren't worth eating as food...Our physical well-being is
more directly dependent upon the minerals we take into our systems than
upon calories or vitamins or upon the precise proportions of starch,
protein or carbohydrates we consume."
"It is bad news to learn from our leading authorities that
99% of the American people are deficient in these minerals, and that a
marked deficiency in any one of the more important minerals actually
results in disease. Any upset of the balance, any considerable lack or
one or another element, however microscopic the body requirement may be,
and we sicken, suffer, shorten our lives."
So sixty-eight years ago, the American Government knew full
well the problems facing the people, but the stuffed-shirt medical
fraternity did absolutely nothing to help. In fact, driven ever onwards
by the extravagant fiscal needs of pharmaceutical shareholders, medical
'science' and its subordinate doctors stood reality on its ear, and
proceeded to steadily undermine what little good health the general
community had left.

Surely there's something a little more recent.



--
BRD

On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 19:32:46 +0000, BRD
wrote:


Hello,

I just joined this site because of a lot of research I've done in
nutrient deficiencies among the 'civilized' areas of the world. What
I've found out, is that the majority of the foods that are grown today
are severely deficient in what a normal healthy human needs. The main
reason behind this is the type of soil being used to grow foods.
Artificial things mostly. The soil is able to grow things BIG and
FAST, but they are lacking the vitamins and minerals we need, because
this soil isn't as good for our food as natural soil is.
The so-called 3rd world countries use no fertlizers that aren't 100%
natural, and no extra additives to the soil that could be absorbed by
the food. These cultures have better overall health, don't have the
same types of diseases that we get, and are thinner, with lower blood
pressure, and live longer. They're thinking this is something as simple
as vitamin/mineral deficiency in the soil that our Farmers use to grow
the food we typically buy at the Supermarkets.
So, what I'm asking you all is where can I look for good natural soil
to grow food in? If testing, what should I be looking for in these
tests? I'm wanting to start to grow hopefully the majority of the food
I eat one day. I live in New Mexico, so good soil is probably hard to
come by.

Any suggestions?

I have followed this thread, very closely, because there is very
little else posted this time of the year. To make these statements
about third world countries, are unfounded and not true. Why don't
you do your research and then repost, with foot notes.

As far as soil deficiency, and food deficiency, I fail to see the
point. If the soil is deficient, then the plant that needs that
nutrient will not grow. If 1 tomato will not give you enough vitamin
A, then eat two and etc.

Sorry, I don't mean to "flame" anyone, but many will read this post
and take it as fact, when it isn't.

I use organic and commercial fertilizer, I also use pesticides and
sometime herbicides, I have lived much of my life on the farm,
including back in the '30s when we raised most of what we eat(believe
me, this is not what you want).

I am sure all the vices will shorten my life span--maybe down to say
90, I will soon be 72, and can still do a pretty good days work. In
the spring I still put in 10 maybe 12 hrs a day on the tractor.

Have a good day, I will--The Old Timer!

On 9/9/05 8:34 AM, in article ,
"The Old Timer!" wrote:

snip

I am sure all the vices will shorten my life span--maybe down to say
90, I will soon be 72, and can still do a pretty good days work. In
the spring I still put in 10 maybe 12 hrs a day on the tractor.

Well said!

== I have lived much of my life on the farm,
== including back in the '30s when we raised most of what we eat

This is a subject that easily has 'political overtones.' Like
'global warming.'

Do apples vary in nutrional value- depending on how they are grown,
or how
far they are shipped?

I have been making organic soil from mulching for the past several
years. I have
learned to add dolomite-- to keep the sunflowers and corn plants from
tipping over
when they are fully grown.

No, you misread that part. I didn't say this was about third world countries, it's about the civilized countries that are deficient.

There are enough nutrients in the soil for the FOOD to grow, and to look pretty and healthy, but there aren't enough nutrients to fulfill a daily value for human consumption.

And the reason why there isn't a more recent study to quote, is because the US Government knew what was going on in the 30's, but chose to keep it that way. After all, if we're all sick, we're spending money to buy drugs to get us well.

They don't want us to get well. The sicker we are, the more drugs we buy, the richer the FDA and drug companies become.

But, I didn't come here to discuss this fun stuff Just looking for some tips and tricks.

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 17:39:29 +0000, BRD
wrote:
snipped, as is right and polite

No, you misread that part. I didn't say this was about third world
countries, it's about the civilized countries that are deficient.

So, specifically name the third world country that has a higher
life expectancy than any in the first world. And no airy hand
waving, quote recent and reliable sources.

And, you can't, because life expectancy in the first world is
much higher than in third world countries. There are no nutrient
deficiencies in crops grown in this country. You can make a case
for the danger of pesticide residues, and feel free to shriek
hysterically about GMO's; but a plant that is deficient in
nutrients will be stunted, not unhealthy for a person to eat.

There are enough nutrients in the soil for the FOOD to grow, and to
look pretty and healthy, but there aren't enough nutrients to fulfill a
daily value for human consumption.

I'm gobsmacked at the sheer stupidity of this statement. No, one
fruit or one vegetable will not give you all the vitamins and
minerals that a person needs, nor will they supply the calories,
protein, fats, or carbohydrates. But, then, they never would, not
back in the "Good Old Days", and not in third world countries
today. Humans and a lot of non-human primates are omnivores, they
consume a wide variety of fruits, seeds, vegetables, and other
animals, fish, and insects to get all the nutrients and calories
they require. Have you never heard the old saw about a healthy
diet being a colorful one? Vegetarians and vegans thrive on crops
grown in the US, too.


And the reason why there isn't a more recent study to quote, is because
the US Government knew what was going on in the 30's, but chose to keep
it that way. After all, if we're all sick, we're spending money to buy
drugs to get us well.

They don't want us to get well. The sicker we are, the more drugs we
buy, the richer the FDA and drug companies become.

Who's sick? What ailments are you speaking of? I'm as healthy as
a horse, and I don't even come close to growing my own food. My
garden is a hobby, mostly peppers, tomatoes, and herbs.

Please point me to the organization that has tested fruits and
vegetables grown under intensive farming conditions, and that can
supply me nutritional facts about each fruit and vegetable
they've tested, and where each fruit and vegetable is considered
deficient. None of this paranoid "the government is hushing it
up" nonsense, either. There are lots and lots of private
organizations that would love to be able to prove that modern
farming methods are detrimental to our health.

I expect that there are differences in the nutritional values of
organic produce verses non-organic; but they're not significant
enough to effect the health of individuals.

But, I didn't come here to discuss this fun stuff Just looking for
some tips and tricks.

To survive the lobotomy you've clearly had? I don't think there's
much hope for you.


I am a firm believer, btw, in the benefits of organic gardening,
but the kind of stupidity that you're spouting damages the
credibility of those of us who try and promote organic gardening
methods to those around us.

Penelope
--
"Maybe you'd like to ask the Wizard for a heart."
"ElissaAnn"