On Sep 17, 1:37*pm, mj wrote:
On Sep 17, 7:47*am, phorbin wrote:

In article 0a2ea65d-b4a5-40f7-ba3d-
, says....

Yes, why is it that everyone thinks that if you grow in hydroponics it
must be pot?

The original post asked for advice on growing "killer marijuana"

That would be "killer marijuana Hydro"
I don't get your point.
MJ

How does that answer my question?
MJ

In article ss,
"gunner" wrote:

http://www.hos.ufl.edu/protectedag/p...babysquash.pdf

No mention of nutrients. In most other cases, plants that struggle to
survive have more bioflavonoids, bell peppers being an exception. Are
"ponics" competitive? Citation please.
--
³When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist.²
-Archbishop Helder Camara

http://tinyurl.com/o63ruj
http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm

"Billy" wrote in message
...
In article ss,
"gunner" wrote:

http://www.hos.ufl.edu/protectedag/p...babysquash.pdf

No mention of nutrients. In most other cases, plants that struggle to
survive have more bioflavonoids, bell peppers being an exception. Are
"ponics" competitive? Citation please.


Highly, especially Tomatoes and Peppers.
The specific hydroponic nutritional analysis is referenced in here :
http://hydromall.com/web/content/view/28/41/

I understand the concept but would like to see your "struggle to survive"
material research.
What plants, methods, etc. Was it environmental stress, heat stress, water
deprivation, bending?

In article ss,
"gunner" wrote:

"Billy" wrote in message
...
In article ss,
"gunner" wrote:

http://www.hos.ufl.edu/protectedag/p...babysquash.pdf

No mention of nutrients. In most other cases, plants that struggle to
survive have more bioflavonoids, bell peppers being an exception. Are
"ponics" competitive? Citation please.


Highly, especially Tomatoes and Peppers.
The specific hydroponic nutritional analysis is referenced in here :
http://hydromall.com/web/content/view/28/41/

I understand the concept but would like to see your "struggle to survive"
material research.
What plants, methods, etc. Was it environmental stress, heat stress, water
deprivation, bending?

Funny that you should hold me to a higher standard than yourself,
especially since the site you gave me appears to be a private lab that
does extensive work for the "biotech" industry.

Here is more information than you gave me.

Omnivore¹s Dilemma
p. 179

³The organic label is a marketing tool," Secretary Glickman said. ³It is
not a statement about food safety. Nor is 'organic' a value judgment
about nutrition or quality."
Some intriguing recent research suggests otherwise. A study by
University of California‹Davis researchers published in the Journal of
Agriculture and Food Chemistry in 2003 described an experiment in which
identical varieties of corn, strawberries, and blackberries grown in
neighboring plots using different methods (including organically and
conventionally) were compared for levels of vitamins and polyphenols.
Polyphenols are a group of secondary metabolites manufactured by plants
that we've recently learned play an important role in human health and
nutrition. Many are potent antioxidants; some play a role in preventing
or fighting cancer; others exhibit antimicrobial properties. The Davis
researchers found that organic and otherwise sustainably grown fruits
and vegetables contained significantly higher levels of both ascorbic
acid (vitamin C) and a wide range of polyphenols.
The recent discovery of these secondary metabolites in plants has ought
our understanding of the biological and chemical complexity of foods to
a deeper level of refinement; history suggests we haven't gotten
anywhere near the bottom of this question, either. The first level was
reached early in the nineteenth century with the identification of the
macronutrients‹protein, carbohydrate, and fat. Having isolated these
compounds, chemists thought they'd unlocked the key to human nutrition.
Yet some people (such as sailors) living on diets rich in macronutrients
nevertheless got sick. The mystery was solved when scientists discovered
the major vitamins‹a second key to human nutrition. Now it's the
polyphenols in plants that we're learning play a critical role in
keeping us healthy. (And which might explain why diets heavy in
processed food fortified with vitamins still aren't as nutritious as
fresh foods.) You wonder what else is going on in these plants, what
other undiscovered qualities in them we've evolved to depend on.
In many ways the mysteries of nutrition at the eating end of the food
chain closely mirror the mysteries of fertility at the growing end: The
two realms are like wildernesses that we keep convincing ourselves our
chemistry has mapped, at least until the next level of complexity comes
into view. Curiously, Justus von Liebig, the nineteenth-century German
chemist with the spectacularly ironic surname, bears responsibility for
science's overly reductive understanding of both ends of the food chain.
It was Liebig, you'll recall, who thought he had found the chemical key
to soil fertility with the discovery of NPK, and it was the same Liebig
who thought he had found the key to human nutrition when identified the
macronutrients in food. Liebig wasn't wrong on either count, yet in both
instances he made the fatal mistake of thinking that what we knew about
nourishing plants and people was all we need to know to keep them
healthy. It's a mistake we'll probably keep repeating until we develop a
deeper respect for the complexity of food soil and, perhaps, the links
between the two.
But back to the polyphenols, which may hint at the nature of that link.
Why in the world should organically grown blackberries or corn contain
significantly more of these compounds? The authors of Davis study
haven't settled the question, but they offer two suggest theories. The
reason plants produce these compounds in the first place is to defend
themselves against pests and diseases; the more pressure from pathogens,
the more polyphenols a plant will produce. These compounds, then, are
the products of natural selection and, more specifically, the
coevolutionary relationship between plants and the species that prey on
them. Who would have guessed that humans evolved to profit from a diet
of these plant pesticides? Or that we would invent an agriculture that
then deprived us of them? The Davis authors hypothesize that plants
being defended by man-made pesticides don¹t need to work as hard to make
their own polyphenol pesticides. Coddled by us and our chemicals, the
plants see no reason to invest their sources in mounting a strong
defense. (Sort of like European nations during the cold war.)
A second explanation (one that subsequent research seems to suppport)
may be that the radically simplified soils in which chemically
fertilized plants grow don't supply all the raw ingredients needed to
synthesize these compounds, leaving the plants more vulnerable to
attack, as we know conventionally grown plants tend to be. NPK might be
sufficient for plant growth yet still might not give a plant everything
it needs to manufacture ascorbic acid or lycopene or resveratrol in
quantity. As it happens, many of the polyphenols (and especially a
sublet called the flavonols) contribute to the characteristic taste of a
fruit or vegetable. Qualities we can't yet identify, in soil may
contribute qualities we've only just begun to identify in our foods and
our bodies.
-----
And,
https://sharepoint.agriculture.purdu...ons/2-%20Wedne
sday,%20September%2017,%202008/Concurrent%20Session%203/The%20Organic%20v
s%20Conventional%20Debate%20-%20Can%20We%20Strike%20a%20Balance%20Between
%20Passion%20and%20Science.pdf
and,
http://www.agricultureinformation.co...g/18027-organi
c-vs-conventional-debate-continues.html
and,
http://www.innovations-report.com/ht...ort-31531.html

I await your ****ing and moaning.
--

- Billy

Racial injustice, war, urban blight, and environmental rape have a common denominator in our exploitative economic system.* ~Channing E. Phillips

Israeli Settlers Attack Palestinian Land
http://i2.democracynow.org/2009/7/22/headlines#7

http://www.tomdispatch.com/p/zinn

"Billy" wrote in message
...


billy, I have oft said that your attempts at self righteous indignation are
a joke, now let me add to that your pseudo-intellectual attempts are as
well.



I don't want your 7th grade book report on the " Organic Bible" nor your
lame attempts to bring this thread back to your pathetic philosophical
platforms.



This is one of those frequent times you should have kept your mouth shut so
as not to remove all doubt.

In article ss,
"gunner" wrote:

"Billy" wrote in message
...


billy, I have oft said that your attempts at self righteous indignation are
a joke, now let me add to that your pseudo-intellectual attempts are as
well.

I gave citations and you give ad hominem attacks, you are sick.


I don't want your 7th grade book report on the " Organic Bible" nor your
lame attempts to bring this thread back to your pathetic philosophical
platforms.

You find the observations of the University of California and one of
it's professors of no worth, nor the views of Penn State University?
Huh?

You attacked me, not the evidence. Why don't you just admit that you are
full of IT?

You asked for substantiation that plants must struggle to produce
healthier food. I gave it. What part of the transaction do . . . aw,
screw it, GFY.



This is one of those frequent times you should have kept your mouth shut so
as not to remove all doubt.
--
³When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist.²
-Archbishop Helder Camara

http://tinyurl.com/o63ruj
http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm

"Billy" wrote in message
...
In article ss,
"gunner" wrote:

"Billy" wrote in message
...


billy, I have oft said that your attempts at self righteous indignation
are
a joke, now let me add to that your pseudo-intellectual attempts are as
well.

I gave citations and you give ad hominem attacks, you are sick.


I don't want your 7th grade book report on the " Organic Bible" nor your
lame attempts to bring this thread back to your pathetic philosophical
platforms.

You find the observations of the University of California and one of
it's professors of no worth, nor the views of Penn State University?
Huh?

You attacked me, not the evidence. Why don't you just admit that you are
full of IT?

You asked for substantiation that plants must struggle to produce
healthier food. I gave it. What part of the transaction do . . . aw,
screw it, GFY.


You didn't answer the question(s), you neglected to proofread your report
and your references; none of which adequately addressed your premise and
you posted a cut and pasted underlined, disjointed, jumbled, juvenile
writing reverting to your usual organic dogma.

Your still pathetic, little boy.

In article
,
Billy wrote:

Funny that you should hold me to a higher standard than yourself,
especially since the site you gave me appears to be a private lab that
does extensive work for the "biotech" industry.

Here is more information than you gave me.

Omnivore¹s Dilemma
p. 179

³The organic label is a marketing tool," Secretary Glickman said. ³It is
not a statement about food safety. Nor is 'organic' a value judgment
about nutrition or quality."
Some intriguing recent research suggests otherwise. A study by
University of California‹Davis researchers published in the Journal of
Agriculture and Food Chemistry in 2003 described an experiment in which
identical varieties of corn, strawberries, and blackberries grown in
neighboring plots using different methods (including organically and
conventionally) were compared for levels of vitamins and polyphenols.
Polyphenols are a group of secondary metabolites manufactured by plants
that we've recently learned play an important role in human health and
nutrition. Many are potent antioxidants; some play a role in preventing
or fighting cancer; others exhibit antimicrobial properties. The Davis
researchers found that organic and otherwise sustainably grown fruits
and vegetables contained significantly higher levels of both ascorbic
acid (vitamin C) and a wide range of polyphenols.
The recent discovery of these secondary metabolites in plants has ought
our understanding of the biological and chemical complexity of foods to
a deeper level of refinement; history suggests we haven't gotten
anywhere near the bottom of this question, either. The first level was
reached early in the nineteenth century with the identification of the
macronutrients‹protein, carbohydrate, and fat. Having isolated these
compounds, chemists thought they'd unlocked the key to human nutrition.
Yet some people (such as sailors) living on diets rich in macronutrients
nevertheless got sick. The mystery was solved when scientists discovered
the major vitamins‹a second key to human nutrition. Now it's the
polyphenols in plants that we're learning play a critical role in
keeping us healthy. (And which might explain why diets heavy in
processed food fortified with vitamins still aren't as nutritious as
fresh foods.) You wonder what else is going on in these plants, what
other undiscovered qualities in them we've evolved to depend on.
In many ways the mysteries of nutrition at the eating end of the food
chain closely mirror the mysteries of fertility at the growing end: The
two realms are like wildernesses that we keep convincing ourselves our
chemistry has mapped, at least until the next level of complexity comes
into view. Curiously, Justus von Liebig, the nineteenth-century German
chemist with the spectacularly ironic surname, bears responsibility for
science's overly reductive understanding of both ends of the food chain.
It was Liebig, you'll recall, who thought he had found the chemical key
to soil fertility with the discovery of NPK, and it was the same Liebig
who thought he had found the key to human nutrition when identified the
macronutrients in food. Liebig wasn't wrong on either count, yet in both
instances he made the fatal mistake of thinking that what we knew about
nourishing plants and people was all we need to know to keep them
healthy. It's a mistake we'll probably keep repeating until we develop a
deeper respect for the complexity of food soil and, perhaps, the links
between the two.
But back to the polyphenols, which may hint at the nature of that link.
Why in the world should organically grown blackberries or corn contain
significantly more of these compounds? The authors of Davis study
haven't settled the question, but they offer two suggest theories. The
reason plants produce these compounds in the first place is to defend
themselves against pests and diseases; the more pressure from pathogens,
the more polyphenols a plant will produce. These compounds, then, are
the products of natural selection and, more specifically, the
coevolutionary relationship between plants and the species that prey on
them. Who would have guessed that humans evolved to profit from a diet
of these plant pesticides? Or that we would invent an agriculture that
then deprived us of them? The Davis authors hypothesize that plants
being defended by man-made pesticides don¹t need to work as hard to make
their own polyphenol pesticides. Coddled by us and our chemicals, the
plants see no reason to invest their sources in mounting a strong
defense. (Sort of like European nations during the cold war.)
A second explanation (one that subsequent research seems to suppport)
may be that the radically simplified soils in which chemically
fertilized plants grow don't supply all the raw ingredients needed to
synthesize these compounds, leaving the plants more vulnerable to
attack, as we know conventionally grown plants tend to be. NPK might be
sufficient for plant growth yet still might not give a plant everything
it needs to manufacture ascorbic acid or lycopene or resveratrol in
quantity. As it happens, many of the polyphenols (and especially a
sublet called the flavonols) contribute to the characteristic taste of a
fruit or vegetable. Qualities we can't yet identify, in soil may
contribute qualities we've only just begun to identify in our foods and
our bodies.
-----
And,
https://sharepoint.agriculture.purdu...ons/2-%20Wedne
sday,%20September%2017,%202008/Concurrent%20Session%203/The%20Organic%20v
s%20Conventional%20Debate%20-%20Can%20We%20Strike%20a%20Balance%20Between
%20Passion%20and%20Science.pdf
and,
http://www.agricultureinformation.co...g/18027-organi
c-vs-conventional-debate-continues.html
and,
http://www.innovations-report.com/ht...ort-31531.html

I await your ****ing and moaning.
-Billy

gunny, sorry I missed the humor in your response.


--

billy, I have oft said that your attempts at self righteous indignation
are
a joke, now let me add to that your pseudo-intellectual attempts are as
well.



I don't want your 7th grade book report on the " Organic Bible" nor your
lame attempts to bring this thread back to your pathetic philosophical
platforms.



This is one of those frequent times you should have kept your mouth shut
so
as not to remove all doubt.
-------
You didn't answer the question(s), you neglected to proofread your
report
and your references; none of which adequately addressed your premise
and
you posted a cut and pasted underlined, disjointed, jumbled, juvenile
writing reverting to your usual organic dogma.

Your still pathetic, little boy.
----

Sorry, gunny, that you can't read, but that isn't my fault. Everything
is there to substantiate my assertions, except for he part where
chemfert fed plants grow faster (as it damages the soil ecosystem),
leading to more tender foliage (which happens to be where the nitrates
are stored), and that in turn attracts insect predators. Of course. if
you are growing indoors, there are no insects, and less flavonoids.

Take another look at the poverty of information in the cite you gave
http://hydromall.com/web/content/view/28/41/ from Plant Research
Technologies Inc. and see if you can find the parameters that you are
asking of me.

Now you can GFY ;O)
--
³When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist.²
-Archbishop Helder Camara

http://tinyurl.com/o63ruj
http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm

"Billy" whines like a little girl in message
...
and in article
,
when little billy childishly wrote: Now you can
GFY ;O) .

So you want to continue arguing your ignorance by referencing your Internet
abstract articles of papers you can't get, Amazon book reviews of books you
don't buy and google references you don't read through?

billy, you whine like a little Valley Bitch about something you still
fail to show is true, yet you cast dispersions on an article that gives you
some of the specific details that you say you want to see. It also gives
leads to the data source, so as you claim, you can further research the
subject. (sure you will...)

I gave you the information you asked for. Poverty or not, it gave more
specific detail than all your disjointed, underlined, BS crap did. As
usual, your referencing a massive volume of BS is still going to equal BS.
The onus is not on me to prove anything to you nor to play your silly ass
little games. Your penchant for SALG and drunken diatribes are quite
apparent.

You have a very bad habit of juvenile google researching and still you
never thoroughly reading your cherry picked sources. It is thinly veiled
information that you think illustrates your point and disregards anything
that would contradict your "facts". But in case you missed the basic
interrogatives my article gave I will include them here so you don't get
confused again. Also, If you need a lesson in the basic interrogatives, let
me know, I can recommend some remedial programs for you.

"Plant Research Technologies Inc., an independent analytical laboratory in
San Jose, California," (The one you call an industry hack because you
can't refute the study so you have to cast dispersions on it as a
industry insider. As if Mitchell and the Organic Center don't have a
connection!) stated that :

"Tomatoes (Patio Pride) demonstrated a mean increase of 50 percent in
vitamin and mineral content. Of the 14 values tested, the hydroponics
tomatoes showed increases in five and modest decreases of 25 to 30 percent
in three. Sweet peppers (Gypsy) showed a mean increase of 150 percent -
increases in nine of the 14 values tested and equal to soil-grown in the
remaining five. The sweet peppers tested up to 300 percent higher in
vitamins B2 and B3. A literature search including USDA, EPA and FDA
publications, plus reports from university and private industry sources on
the nutritional content of soil-grown crops was used in the study

Nutritional analysis included vitamins A, B1 (thiamin), B2 (riboflavin), B3
(niacin), B6 (pyridoxine), C and E. The plant analysis included nitrogen,
sulfur, phosphorous, potassium, magnesium, calcium, sodium, iron, aluminum,
manganese, copper, boron and zinc.

The tomatoes were grown in an Aquafarm system and the peppers in an AeroFlo
system both using hydroponic nutrients. The hydroponic produce was also
tested for heavy metals and chemical residues on the EPA's priority list.
None were detected."

Pretty specific details in there for a short article, billy. Quite opposite
of the thin dogma you give in that load of BS you reference as proof.

This is specific, measurable information, something you so often fail to
give in your quest for us heathens to see the organic light. Perhaps if you
offer 72
virgins to work the 40 acres and a mule dream you also promise when on your
organic soapbox.

What did your book author Pollan and your google scientific
articles actually show? the definition of a Phenolic? the actual
bioflavonoids you refer to? The quantified amounts? The exact conditions
each were grown in?

No, none of those things, just more organic supposition to create subject
hyperbole.

I find nothing to address any of the basic interrogatives, nothing. just
references to references that suggest it MAY BE true. The reference that
Mitchell's work is going to be reviewed by the UK's FSA seemed to be a
good lead, yet it also failed to be conclusive as evidenced by the UK's
FSA. So all
you have is hyperbole.

"The Davis researchers found that organic and otherwise sustainably grown
fruits and vegetables contained significantly higher levels of both ascorbic
acid (vitamin C) and a wide range of polyphenols."

OK, who, what, why, when, where, and how? What is meant by "significant",
"otherwise sustainably"?
Your references again fail to show any specifics, billy. It wold be nice to
know the study he is refering to with such a claim.

And this one?

"The Davis authors hypothesize that plants being defended by man-made
pesticides don¹t need to work as hard to make their own polyphenol
pesticides".

OK, where is some proof to the hypothesize and again, where are the basic
interrogatives? Do
try to remember that the subject was hydroponics, not conventional, not
organic... hydroponics, a subject you know little to nothing about.

Here is another quote from your reference of Pollan: " A second explanation
(one that
subsequent research seems to support) MAY BE that the radically simplified
soils in which chemically fertilized plants grow don't supply all the raw
ingredients needed to synthesize these compounds, leaving the plants more
vulnerable to
attack, as we know conventionally grown plants tend to be."

"...seems to support" ..."MAY BE"? Real scientific info coming from a book
writer guy worrying about the psychological rearing of a pig being killed
for dinner. and what is this? "....as we know conventionally grown plants
tend to be"?

Do you dare attempt to prove that tidbit of junk science with a MAYBE
theory? MAYBE he is a popular writer but using Pollan as an authoritative
source is hardly science.

Now, lets go to your google references you hide in that jumbled mess you
posted
and note this passage from those disjointed and redundant references:

"The findings add to a SMALL BODY OF LITERATURE
showing higher levels of antioxidants in some organic produce, including
research out of the UC-Davis showing higher levels of phenols in some
berries."
(Was this Mitchell's research of her research?)

AND THIS LITTLE REVEALING TIDBIT, ALSO FROM YOUR BS REFERENCES

"Building solid evidence confirming the benefits of organic fruits and
vegetables over conventionally grown produce IS HAMPERED by wide
variances in organic farming, ranging from soil and climate differences to
variations in crops, seasons and farmer philosophies, said Diane Barrett,
also a researcher with the UC-Davis department of food science and
technology."

AND AGAIN FROM YOUR BS REFERENCES

"We need MORE controlled and real-life commercial studies, and we NEED
BETTER collaboration between researchers to get a broader look at
growing systems," said Barrett."

Did that fellow UC-Davis researcher infer Mitchell needs more controlled and
real-life commercial studies? that solid evidence is hampered? that there
is a small body of literature and that better research is needed?

Funny, the UK's FSA report this summer came to the very same conclusion.
little scientific evidence to support the overly broad claim organic is
better.

The controversial and peer reviewed UK's FSA report looked at the whole
organic is better claim that you recite ad naseum.
1st review
http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pd...appendices.pdf

2nd review
http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pd...viewreport.pdf

peer-reviewed by the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abst...n.2009.28041v1


"Dr. Dangour, of the LSHTM's Nutrition and Public Health Intervention
Research Unit, and the principal author of the paper, said: 'A SMAll NUMBER
of differences in nutrient content were found to exist between organically
and
conventionally produced crops and livestock, but
these are unlikely to be of any public health relevance. Our review
indicates that there is currently no evidence to support the selection of
organically over conventionally produced foods on the basis of nutritional
superiority."

ohh...A SMAll NUMBER...This really ****ed off the Organic community which
is
still up in arms and as you often do, disparage his ancestry, his loyalty
and his scientific knowledge. Shortly after, the French claim they had a
study to prove it true and the Swedes one that supported the FSA.... Still a
host of
articles abound written from that FSA press release, many with the exact
verbiage,
depending on the ideological bent of the writer, few of any worth
addressing the actual report contents.

It is a good bet there will be much further debate on all this but right now
there is no one that has any real answers, just best guess and a bunch of
the same myths you spout.

But due note your Dr. Mitchell's studies were in that FSA study. I am not
knocking Mitchell's studies in the context of research, but you still have
no
real idea of what she is researching and what her findings actually are.
What is the "significant difference you claim? Is is a PPM? is it 1 or
perhaps
3 mmol kg¯ 1 gram more? What specifically is the difference of what
compound and how does it affect the plant and more importantly, humans?

So all very interesting, yet, again..... still absolutely NOTHING to do
with
Hydroponics, which BTW, I will still maintain does all that organic claims
and even better; lower pesticides,better growth, higher yields, less
pollution, less labor, less enviro footprint and does it all with the very
chemical
salts that you claim kills the earth and uses much less water. And yes,
tastes as good as or better.
BTW, If called for, I can control stress environments much easier and more
precisely hydroponically
than you could ever attempt to do organically.

"Multiple biotic and aboitic factors can influence levels of phenolics
antioxidants in fruit and vegetables and it is important to consider these
factors when sampling and compiling values."
Dr. A. Mitchell

So without a recognized standard, data is all subjective. If subjective,
how can one say it is an accurate comparison and therefore one is better.
YOU don't get to change facts to suit your arguement.

Now STFU, go play your SLAG with someone else that doesn't know you better
or
someone that will put up with your drunken diatribes. There is no more
audience for you to play hillbilly professor to.

In article ,
"gunner" wrote:

Ad hominems and derision, that's all you got? LOL ;O)

"Billy" whines like a little girl in message
...
and in article
,
when little billy childishly wrote: Now you can
GFY ;O) .

So you want to continue arguing your ignorance by referencing your Internet
abstract articles of papers you can't get, Amazon book reviews of books you
don't buy and google references you don't read through?

billy, you whine like a little Valley Bitch about something you still
fail to show is true, yet you cast dispersions on an article that gives you
some of the specific details that you say you want to see. It also gives
leads to the data source, so as you claim, you can further research the
subject. (sure you will...)

I gave you the information you asked for. Poverty or not, it gave more
specific detail than all your disjointed, underlined, BS crap did. As
usual, your referencing a massive volume of BS is still going to equal BS.
The onus is not on me to prove anything to you nor to play your silly ass
little games. Your penchant for SALG and drunken diatribes are quite
apparent.

You have a very bad habit of juvenile google researching and still you
never thoroughly reading your cherry picked sources. It is thinly veiled
information that you think illustrates your point and disregards anything
that would contradict your "facts". But in case you missed the basic
interrogatives my article gave I will include them here so you don't get
confused again. Also, If you need a lesson in the basic interrogatives, let
me know, I can recommend some remedial programs for you.

"Plant Research Technologies Inc., an independent analytical laboratory in
San Jose, California," (The one you call an industry hack because you
can't refute the study so you have to cast dispersions on it as a
industry insider. As if Mitchell and the Organic Center don't have a
connection!) stated that :

"Tomatoes (Patio Pride) demonstrated a mean increase of 50 percent in
vitamin and mineral content. Of the 14 values tested, the hydroponics
tomatoes showed increases in five and modest decreases of 25 to 30 percent
in three. Sweet peppers (Gypsy) showed a mean increase of 150 percent -
increases in nine of the 14 values tested and equal to soil-grown in the
remaining five. The sweet peppers tested up to 300 percent higher in
vitamins B2 and B3. A literature search including USDA, EPA and FDA
publications, plus reports from university and private industry sources on
the nutritional content of soil-grown crops was used in the study

Nutritional analysis included vitamins A, B1 (thiamin), B2 (riboflavin), B3
(niacin), B6 (pyridoxine), C and E. The plant analysis included nitrogen,
sulfur, phosphorous, potassium, magnesium, calcium, sodium, iron, aluminum,
manganese, copper, boron and zinc.

The tomatoes were grown in an Aquafarm system and the peppers in an AeroFlo
system both using hydroponic nutrients. The hydroponic produce was also
tested for heavy metals and chemical residues on the EPA's priority list.
None were detected."

Pretty specific details in there for a short article, billy. Quite opposite
of the thin dogma you give in that load of BS you reference as proof.

This is specific, measurable information, something you so often fail to
give in your quest for us heathens to see the organic light. Perhaps if you
offer 72
virgins to work the 40 acres and a mule dream you also promise when on your
organic soapbox.

What did your book author Pollan and your google scientific
articles actually show? the definition of a Phenolic? the actual
bioflavonoids you refer to? The quantified amounts? The exact conditions
each were grown in?

No, none of those things, just more organic supposition to create subject
hyperbole.

I find nothing to address any of the basic interrogatives, nothing. just
references to references that suggest it MAY BE true. The reference that
Mitchell's work is going to be reviewed by the UK's FSA seemed to be a
good lead, yet it also failed to be conclusive as evidenced by the UK's
FSA. So all
you have is hyperbole.

"The Davis researchers found that organic and otherwise sustainably grown
fruits and vegetables contained significantly higher levels of both ascorbic
acid (vitamin C) and a wide range of polyphenols."

OK, who, what, why, when, where, and how? What is meant by "significant",
"otherwise sustainably"?
Your references again fail to show any specifics, billy. It wold be nice to
know the study he is refering to with such a claim.

And this one?

"The Davis authors hypothesize that plants being defended by man-made
pesticides don¹t need to work as hard to make their own polyphenol
pesticides".

OK, where is some proof to the hypothesize and again, where are the basic
interrogatives? Do
try to remember that the subject was hydroponics, not conventional, not
organic... hydroponics, a subject you know little to nothing about.

Here is another quote from your reference of Pollan: " A second explanation
(one that
subsequent research seems to support) MAY BE that the radically simplified
soils in which chemically fertilized plants grow don't supply all the raw
ingredients needed to synthesize these compounds, leaving the plants more
vulnerable to
attack, as we know conventionally grown plants tend to be."

"...seems to support" ..."MAY BE"? Real scientific info coming from a book
writer guy worrying about the psychological rearing of a pig being killed
for dinner. and what is this? "....as we know conventionally grown plants
tend to be"?

Do you dare attempt to prove that tidbit of junk science with a MAYBE
theory? MAYBE he is a popular writer but using Pollan as an authoritative
source is hardly science.

Now, lets go to your google references you hide in that jumbled mess you
posted
and note this passage from those disjointed and redundant references:

"The findings add to a SMALL BODY OF LITERATURE
showing higher levels of antioxidants in some organic produce, including
research out of the UC-Davis showing higher levels of phenols in some
berries."
(Was this Mitchell's research of her research?)

AND THIS LITTLE REVEALING TIDBIT, ALSO FROM YOUR BS REFERENCES

"Building solid evidence confirming the benefits of organic fruits and
vegetables over conventionally grown produce IS HAMPERED by wide
variances in organic farming, ranging from soil and climate differences to
variations in crops, seasons and farmer philosophies, said Diane Barrett,
also a researcher with the UC-Davis department of food science and
technology."

AND AGAIN FROM YOUR BS REFERENCES

"We need MORE controlled and real-life commercial studies, and we NEED
BETTER collaboration between researchers to get a broader look at
growing systems," said Barrett."

Did that fellow UC-Davis researcher infer Mitchell needs more controlled and
real-life commercial studies? that solid evidence is hampered? that there
is a small body of literature and that better research is needed?

Funny, the UK's FSA report this summer came to the very same conclusion.
little scientific evidence to support the overly broad claim organic is
better.

The controversial and peer reviewed UK's FSA report looked at the whole
organic is better claim that you recite ad naseum.
1st review
http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pd...appendices.pdf

2nd review
http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pd...viewreport.pdf

peer-reviewed by the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abst...n.2009.28041v1


"Dr. Dangour, of the LSHTM's Nutrition and Public Health Intervention
Research Unit, and the principal author of the paper, said: 'A SMAll NUMBER
of differences in nutrient content were found to exist between organically
and
conventionally produced crops and livestock, but
these are unlikely to be of any public health relevance. Our review
indicates that there is currently no evidence to support the selection of
organically over conventionally produced foods on the basis of nutritional
superiority."

ohh...A SMAll NUMBER...This really ****ed off the Organic community which
is
still up in arms and as you often do, disparage his ancestry, his loyalty
and his scientific knowledge. Shortly after, the French claim they had a
study to prove it true and the Swedes one that supported the FSA.... Still a
host of
articles abound written from that FSA press release, many with the exact
verbiage,
depending on the ideological bent of the writer, few of any worth
addressing the actual report contents.

It is a good bet there will be much further debate on all this but right now
there is no one that has any real answers, just best guess and a bunch of
the same myths you spout.

But due note your Dr. Mitchell's studies were in that FSA study. I am not
knocking Mitchell's studies in the context of research, but you still have
no
real idea of what she is researching and what her findings actually are.
What is the "significant difference you claim? Is is a PPM? is it 1 or
perhaps
3 mmol kg¯ 1 gram more? What specifically is the difference of what
compound and how does it affect the plant and more importantly, humans?

So all very interesting, yet, again..... still absolutely NOTHING to do
with
Hydroponics, which BTW, I will still maintain does all that organic claims
and even better; lower pesticides,better growth, higher yields, less
pollution, less labor, less enviro footprint and does it all with the very
chemical
salts that you claim kills the earth and uses much less water. And yes,
tastes as good as or better.
BTW, If called for, I can control stress environments much easier and more
precisely hydroponically
than you could ever attempt to do organically.

"Multiple biotic and aboitic factors can influence levels of phenolics
antioxidants in fruit and vegetables and it is important to consider these
factors when sampling and compiling values."
Dr. A. Mitchell

So without a recognized standard, data is all subjective. If subjective,
how can one say it is an accurate comparison and therefore one is better.
YOU don't get to change facts to suit your arguement.

Now STFU, go play your SLAG with someone else that doesn't know you better
or
someone that will put up with your drunken diatribes. There is no more
audience for you to play hillbilly professor to.
--
³When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist.²
-Archbishop Helder Camara

http://tinyurl.com/o63ruj
http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm

Little "Billy" writes

" . . . aw, screw it, GFY."

and in another message again writes:

"Now you can GFY ;O) ."

Then feign he is unfairly attacked, attempting to sidetrack the fact he
cannot defend his unfounded claims by stating " Ad hominems and derision,
that's all you got? LOL ;O)"

Wow, another jewel in a long list from the little boy who tells folks to go
**** themself everytime he is proved wrong! How mentally myopic you remain,
billy. Still, I note you do not refute the FSA study contridicting your
claim nor your absurd references that you gave to support them. So, I can
assume you have no further proof to offer, well, any real proof that is. In
the future do proofread your work, check your references well, stop cherry
picking and above all, forgo the Billy Mayes Marketing techniques.

Yet, I am glad you attempt at least one of Segan's "Fine Art of Boloney
Detection" concepts that I showed you, now if you can only grasp some of his
others and actually apply them to support your positions.

I do hope you will continue your learning; instead of your usual
peusdointellectual cherry picking and quoting half truths followed by your
Romper Room theatrics. Good luck with that.

Just remember, billy; Who, what, why, when, were and how. Learn em, and
as well refer to Segan's principles often: http://tinyurl.com/y29s4o

In article ss,
"gunner" wrote:

Little "Billy" writes

" . . . aw, screw it, GFY."

and in another message again writes:

"Now you can GFY ;O) ."

Then feign he is unfairly attacked, attempting to sidetrack the fact he
cannot defend his unfounded claims by stating " Ad hominems and derision,
that's all you got? LOL ;O)"

Wow, another jewel in a long list from the little boy who tells folks to go
**** themself everytime he is proved wrong! How mentally myopic you remain,
billy. Still, I note you do not refute the FSA study contridicting your
claim nor your absurd references that you gave to support them. So, I can
assume you have no further proof to offer, well, any real proof that is. In
the future do proofread your work, check your references well, stop cherry
picking and above all, forgo the Billy Mayes Marketing techniques.

Yet, I am glad you attempt at least one of Segan's "Fine Art of Boloney
Detection" concepts that I showed you, now if you can only grasp some of his
others and actually apply them to support your positions.

I do hope you will continue your learning; instead of your usual
peusdointellectual cherry picking and quoting half truths followed by your
Romper Room theatrics. Good luck with that.

Just remember, billy; Who, what, why, when, were and how. Learn em, and
as well refer to Segan's principles often: http://tinyurl.com/y29s4o

Blah, blah, blah, I thought we were talking about nutrients in plants,
which is why you choose the praise of a company (I noticed you left out
their url [http:hydromall.com/web/content/view/28/41/) that prides
itself on working with biotech companies, to minimize the favorable
reports from the University of California at Davis, and others.

I can see that you are a true believer, and that you have no control
over your need to protect your fantasy, I wish you luck.
--
³When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist.²
-Archbishop Helder Camara

http://tinyurl.com/o63ruj
http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm

"Billy" wrote in message
...
In article ss,
"gunner" wrote:

Little "Billy" writes

" . . . aw, screw it, GFY."

and in another message again writes:

"Now you can GFY ;O) ."

Then feign he is unfairly attacked, attempting to sidetrack the fact he
cannot defend his unfounded claims by stating " Ad hominems and derision,
that's all you got? LOL ;O)"

Wow, another jewel in a long list from the little boy who tells folks to
go **** themself everytime he is proved wrong! ...

Blah, blah, blah, I thought we were talking about nutrients in plants,
which is why you choose the praise of a company (I noticed you left out
their url [http:hydromall.com/web/content/view/28/41/) that prides
itself on working with biotech companies, to minimize the favorable
reports from the University of California at Davis, and others.


Have you sobered up from your all night binge yet, billy? When you do, go
back and "notice" I gave you that url on Tuesday, September 22, 2009 10:30
AM so you must not have noticed very much, perhaps because you were again
Drunk While Typing.

I realize it may be after you graduate the 7th grade this next year, but
when you can comprehend the thread, try to address the contradictions I
outlined from your jumbled, disjointed references you erroneously believe
shows that organic is better.

Just for fun, here is yet another refutation of your claim from one of the
very UC-Davis PhDs in that jumbled up mess you cite as proof?


" At the 66th Annual meeting and Food Expo in Orlando FL, Dr. Diane Barrett,
Food Science & Technology Dept, UC-Davis said she cannot conclusively say
that organic fruit is healthier. Barrett said that in one study, there were
signs that the total phenolic levels were higher in the organic product, And
(sic) there were higher levels of vitamin C in frozen organic tomatoes. But
neither the levels of lycopene, an antioxidant, nor some of the minerals
were noticeably higher in the organic product. In another study there was
no significant increase in vitamin C and lycopene levels between the organic
and conventionally grown products"



IFT Media Relations, Chicago, Il



But lets stay on your claim of organic superiority and address the most
exhaustive study
todate, the UK's FSA study completed this summer( 2009) that says "Our
review
indicates that there is currently no evidence to support the selection of
organically over conventionally produced foods on the basis of nutritional
superiority."



1st review
http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pd...appendices.pdf

2nd review
http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pd...viewreport.pdf

peer-reviewed by the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abst...n.2009.28041v1




You can try to refute the study, billy, but you can't with any real
scientific evidence, just observational selection

inferences from the many pro-organo organizations. But you wouldn't want to
quote an "industry hack " that have may
have a hidden agenda or praise as you so often infer the chem folks do,
would you?



Just saying something is true is a lot different than actually proving it.
You fail at proving you claims a lot.



Again, the BS trademark political commentaries are snipped.

In article ss,
"gunner" wrote:

"Billy" wrote in message
...
In article ss,
"gunner" wrote:

Little "Billy" writes

" . . . aw, screw it, GFY."

and in another message again writes:

"Now you can GFY ;O) ."

Then feign he is unfairly attacked, attempting to sidetrack the fact he
cannot defend his unfounded claims by stating " Ad hominems and derision,
that's all you got? LOL ;O)"

Wow, another jewel in a long list from the little boy who tells folks to
go **** themself everytime he is proved wrong! ...

Blah, blah, blah, I thought we were talking about nutrients in plants,
which is why you choose the praise of a company (I noticed you left out
their url [http:hydromall.com/web/content/view/28/41/) that prides
itself on working with biotech companies, to minimize the favorable
reports from the University of California at Davis, and others.


Have you sobered up from your all night binge yet, billy? When you do, go
back and "notice" I gave you that url on Tuesday, September 22, 2009 10:30
AM so you must not have noticed very much, perhaps because you were again
Drunk While Typing.

I realize it may be after you graduate the 7th grade this next year, but
when you can comprehend the thread, try to address the contradictions I
outlined from your jumbled, disjointed references you erroneously believe
shows that organic is better.

Just for fun, here is yet another refutation of your claim from one of the
very UC-Davis PhDs in that jumbled up mess you cite as proof?


" At the 66th Annual meeting and Food Expo in Orlando FL, Dr. Diane Barrett,
Food Science & Technology Dept, UC-Davis said she cannot conclusively say
that organic fruit is healthier. Barrett said that in one study, there were
signs that the total phenolic levels were higher in the organic product, And
(sic) there were higher levels of vitamin C in frozen organic tomatoes. But
neither the levels of lycopene, an antioxidant, nor some of the minerals
were noticeably higher in the organic product. In another study there was
no significant increase in vitamin C and lycopene levels between the organic
and conventionally grown products"



IFT Media Relations, Chicago, Il



But lets stay on your claim of organic superiority and address the most
exhaustive study
todate, the UK's FSA study completed this summer( 2009) that says "Our
review
indicates that there is currently no evidence to support the selection of
organically over conventionally produced foods on the basis of nutritional
superiority."



1st review
http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pd...appendices.pdf
Who are these people, and when where these studies made?

2nd review
http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pd...viewreport.pdf
Who are these people, and when where these studies made?


peer-reviewed by the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abst...n.2009.28041v1
"In an analysis that included only satisfactory quality studies,
conventionally produced crops had a significantly higher content of
nitrogen, and organically produced crops had a significantly higher
content of phosphorus and higher titratable acidity. No evidence of a
difference was detected for the remaining 8 of 11 crop nutrient
categories analyzed."

So as I said, chemfert nitrogen is stored in the leaves of the plants,
making them a target for noxious insects.

"No evidence of a difference was detected for the remaining 8 of 11 crop
nutrient categories analyzed."

What 8 nutrient categories? Do they include bioflavonoids?




You can try to refute the study, billy, but you can't with any real
scientific evidence, just observational selection

inferences from the many pro-organo organizations. But you wouldn't want to
quote an "industry hack " that have may
have a hidden agenda or praise as you so often infer the chem folks do,
would you?



Just saying something is true is a lot different than actually proving it.
You fail at proving you claims a lot.



Again, the BS trademark political commentaries are snipped.

Who are these people and what are they talking about? You give a couple
of cites that don't identify themselves or what they are talking about.
Are you just pulling this out of your backside? What a bleeding ******.
--
³When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist.²
-Archbishop Helder Camara

http://tinyurl.com/o63ruj
http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm

In article ss,
says...


Have you sobered ve noticed very much, perhaps because you were again
Drunk While Typing.

You still at it?

Ah well, back to the killfile wit ye.

plonk