Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
any hydro peeps here?
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
any hydro peeps here?
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
any hydro peeps here?
"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? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
any hydro peeps here?
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
any hydro peeps here?
"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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
any hydro peeps here?
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
any hydro peeps here?
"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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
any hydro peeps here?
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
any hydro peeps here?
"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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
any hydro peeps here?
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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
any hydro peeps here?
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 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
any hydro peeps here?
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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
any hydro peeps here?
"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. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
any hydro peeps here?
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 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
any hydro peeps here?
|
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
OT how much USA peeps are different | United Kingdom | |||
any hydro peeps here? | Edible Gardening | |||
any hydro peeps here? | Edible Gardening | |||
Semi-Hydro versus Water Culture? | Orchids | |||
"Hydro Seeding" Opinions Please ? | Lawns |