Subject: Re: British Beef Situation

From: [email-masked] (Nathan D. Justus)
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 96 00:13:08 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
   Oz <[email-masked]> wrote:

Hello.

>In article <[email-masked]>, "Nathan D. Justus"

>I don't think the world is going to run out of fertiliser any time soon. 

Probably not, however, the damage to the soil that is done when soil building 
things like organic matter are not incorporated is tremendous.

>
>Not to mention how many people in other parts of the world would starve 
>as a result, of course. And voters who might be a tad upset if their 
>food prices rise by 500%.
>

Yes, I agree.  I am not really desirous of seeing my food bill increase five 
fold either.

>>I know that yields using organic growth techniques are as high as those 
using 
>>chemicals HOWEVER during the transition period they are NOT - the land must 
be 
>>able to recover from the damage done to it, and the farmer must learn 
organic 
>>techniques.
>Blather. A pipe dream.

Not according to Rodale researches.  Or the US government for that matter.

>
>Farmers in pre-fertiliser and pre-spray days farmed organically and 
>achieved yields typically less than 1/3 of what we have today (UK). They 
>actually knew what they were doing, were pretty smart and had 2000+ 
>years of experience. If you think that, with much of the knowledge lost, 
>and with little experience you are going to do any better then you 
>merely expose your ignorance. I take it you are a practising organic 
>farmer earning your entire income from it?
>

They may have been very smart (they were) and resourceful, but they lacked 
alot of the knowledge that we now have.  I am NOT saying go back to the horse 
for plowing, or using primative agricultural techniques. I'm saying that we 
should use the best of our advanced technology with the idea of land 
stewardship and building of the farmland quality as part of it.

Nor do I claim tremendous knowledge on this subject.  I am a 
practicing software engineer and IT professional who happens to have 
interests that deal with food, cooking, and ecology.  Not that I have to 
explain anything to you ;  your comments are merely nasty and inflammatory, 
rather than informative, I can obviously tell that you have no information on 
this topic either.

>>Further, what do we do about the groundwater exhaustion?
>
>I would worry about that, myself.
>

Well, finally we're in agreement about something.

Nathan R

----------------------------
(Since Sue Ford could trademark her name with a TM, I decided to register mine.
Then I realized that I was already registered with selective service.  Then I
realized that "R" following a name usually designated royalty - a la Rex from
Latin - George R, Elizabeth R.  Naturally I decided I would then adopt that.  So
now I can just say:)
"We are NOT amused."

---

From: [email-masked] (Michael Edelman)
Date: 23 Apr 1996 19:15:33 GMT

Jiva Goswami dasa ([email-masked]) wrote:

: In fact it is not cookoo.  Maybe to get from here to there would be 
: impossible, but the ideal is based on sound reasoning. The UnaBomber may 
: be a crackpot, but the idea of every one living in small low-tech 
: hamlets is a darn good one.

Yes, we can all live like the AMish; all we have to give up is:

eyeglasses
xrays
antibiotics
ambulances
work other than farming
traveling more than 50 miles from home in your life
eating foods other than you and your neighbors raise
cooking over any fuel other than wood
refrigeration
more than one change of clothes

...and what you soon find out is that living like the Amish is only
possible when there are enough non-Amish around you making eyeglasses, 
smelting the ore to make the iron for your implements, providing 
national defense, weaving fabric and so forth.

You also learn that we don't have enough land for everyone to farm in
that horse-powered inefficent manner. The Amish and Ted the Unabomber
Suspect all have their lifestyles subsidized by those who live in the
20th century.

Now pass the imported brie, and a bottle of that nice beaujolais...

--mike

---

From: cmb <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 08:23:12 +0100

In article <[email-masked]>, "Nathan D. Justus"
<[email-masked]> writes
>>farmer earning your entire income from it?
the last sentence shows how we can become blinkered by the constraints
of modern western economic theory.  you do not have to be a practising
organic farmer or earn your entire income from it in order to contribute
both in theory and practice to (a) a more sustainable way of life (b)
producing healthy food. there are are many 'cottage farmers' doing very
nicely on a part time basis; they work in the 'nuts and bolts' economy
to earn the necessary cash and in spare time to produce their food and
preserve/improve the environment. If everyone used their available
resources from window boxes/ backyards/ farms to produce their own food
(EG using permaculture design principals) we would be better fed,
happier and using less non renewable resources in transport,
fertilisers, chemicals etc etc.  

of course the conventional economists don't like it because these
activities don't show up in the GDP, and the agri-businesses don't like
it because they feel threatened by it, hence some of the agressive
replies in this thread. the conventional approach is not working so we
have a responsibility to look dispassionately at the alternatives 

cmb

---

From: Oz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 09:42:02 +0100

>things like organic matter are not incorporated is tremendous.

We had a discussion on this very subject a few months ago in
sci.agriculture. Suffice to say that in practice, certainly in the UK,
this assumption is unjustified in practice IMHO. We can discuss this in
depth if you wish.

>Not according to Rodale researches.  Or the US government for that matter.

Who is Rohdale? How are they doing it? What is their criteria? What 
crops?

With enough manure and no attacks of pests and diseases location then 
vegetable crops can be grown with little difference between organic and 
conventional. However it's as well to note some differences. One problem 
is the mismatch of nutrients in organic manures. So growing potatoes on 
a clay that liberates potassium is fine as you really only have to apply 
enough manure to provide the nitrogen for the crop. Admittedly the high 
nitrogen early in the season results in a lot of small potatoes rather 
than a few big ones and so large peeling losses, but still. Try to grow 
them on a non-potash liberating loam and you are in all sorts of 
trouble. The correct amount of potash results in a massive overdose of 
nitrogen.

Of course if you get blight then the crop is a write-off.
If you get aphids you are in trouble.
If you get Colorado beetle you are in serious trouble.
etc. etc.

For cereals there are too many problems unless we are talking extensive. 
I would define extensive these days as less than 2T/ac. Not least the 
country doesn't provide remotely enough manure to do it.

After all farmers don't waste the manure they produce now and there 
isn't remotely enough sh*t to go round. We use 2,000,000 gallons of 
sewage sludge here and to supply all the nitrogen we need would require 
all the sewage from a town of 30,000 and that's counting the offerings 
of our 200 cow herd. We are only a medium sized UK farm too. It ain't 
possible countrywide. So, someone is going to have to starve. Lots of 
people are going to starve in a yellow rust year. Nature is neither
pernicious nor benign, it just simply doesn't care.

>stewardship and building of the farmland quality as part of it.

Well, my farm *was* farmed semi-organically and you wouldn't have 
described it then as 'hearty land'. You would have described it as low 
fertility, low soil OM, low yielding, poorly structured and generally 
poor. Bag fertiliser over many years increased yields, and thus the 
return of OM to the soil, to the extent that the soil is now in good 
condition. One indicator is that moles, who eat earthworms, were unknown 
then yet are nowadays a plague. So the earthworms prefer it too. Nature 
can be irritating to those with pre-conceived views, can't it?  :-)

>rather than informative, I can obviously tell that you have no information on 

Oh, I apologise if you found my reply 'nasty and inflammatory'. Be
warned though that in many groups I am considered wimpy and excessively
polite. My route to this thread is via .agriculture so it's hard to
remember that there are those posting whose knowledge of agriculture may
be limited. I don't agree with you, but that doesn't mean that my
comments were intended in a nasty fashion. Loosen up a little and have
an open mind. It's an interesting subject and worthy of discussion.

>Well, finally we're in agreement about something.

And why not?

------------------------------- 
'Oz     "When I knew little, all was certain. The more I learnt,
        the less sure I was. Is this the uncertainty principle?"

---

From: Oz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 11:24:46 +0100

In article <[email-masked]>, cmb
<[email-masked]> writes
>fertilisers, chemicals etc etc.  

I'm all for it. Excellent. Unfortunately it typically doesn't begin to
feed the family, much less others with no land. So it's far from being a
solution to feeding the world. It does however make a lot of people very
happy, and that's good.

>it because they feel threatened by it, 

Eh? Absolutely not I would have thought. The effect is miniscule. If
farmers thought about this dispassionately then they would encourage it.
The reduced production would result in reduced supply and thus increased
prices. Funny old world, ain't it?

>hence some of the agressive

Well, the 'conventional' approach is actually feeding the world. This is
a pretty good description of 'working' to me. The 'organic' route
cannot, but it gives a great deal of pleasure to many people and that's
good.

---

From: [email-masked] (Jody Cline)
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 23:36:22 GMT

Jiva Goswami dasa <[email-masked]> wrote:
There is a fatal flaw in the argument that "all the people in the
world could be fed if only the nasty US would turn over all its
concrete to agriculture". Actually, virtually all starvation in this
world today is caused by civil wars; African fighting African and
burning crops and land, Eastern Europeans forced to forgo their
livlihoods and live life as refugees, unable to plant or buy what they
always could before the war. Take a look at the recent years in
Somalia. Civil war with rampant crop burning caused mass starvation.
When refugees were again allowed to live in peace, they had no money
to buy seed and everything else it takes to live before the crops come
in. So starvation reigned supreme a while longer while relief efforts
continued. It isn't the fault of the US that people across the globe
choose to starve their fellow countrymen in such a shameful way.
Relief workers get shot at, blackmailed and generally harassed even
when they try to render relief. Talk to anyone who has worked relief
in civil war situation and hear the horror stories. It'll open your
eyes to the cruelty of people.  And it sure as hell isn't because we
have lots of concrete in the US.

---

From: [email-masked] (David Scott Libby)
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 16:25:17 GMT

>prices. Funny old world, ain't it?

Do you hold shares in ICI by any chance?

>cannot, but it gives a great deal of pleasure to many people and that's

Oz, 

If you have a sense of humility, you won't mind me pointing out
that you don't KNOW (caps in place of italics) that the organic way
can't feed the world. Simply because we haven't tried and failed
yet. It's only just the beginning and there's a lot more to be done.

Nature will bring the world population into balance in time so we
really oughtn't to bother too much about. We will be much better
placed doing the best we can to feed ourselves and those local to us
in a sensible "organic" way. 

I'm curious as to your vision of the long-term future. Do you really
feel that we can carry on eating biocides and get away with it?
Whatever we do (that Mother Nature doesn't like) will be paid for.

Why give up before we've even started, seems a bit defeatist
(bordering on negative) to me. 

Haven't you got any hope?

Are you perhaps an existentialist? 

Is your signature something you believe in or is it merely meant to
be funny. 

>        the less sure I was. Is this the uncertainty principle?"

If the Sun and Moon should doubt they surely would go out. This is
the certainty principle.

David Libby:  112 Kedleston Rd, Derby, DE22 1FW, England
Tel: 01332 736775, Fax too but please ring first.

---

From: Oz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 06:06:06 +0100

In article <[email-masked]>, David Scott Libby
<[email-masked]> writes
>Do you hold shares in ICI by any chance?

No, are you a member of the green party, the soil association .....?

>yet. It's only just the beginning and there's a lot more to be done.

Well, you see, we did try it. It's how people farmed world wide before
WW2. Now just cast your mind back to the population then, the population
now, the world food production then and now.

Now it's, to a rough approximation, a mere matter of subtraction. Of
course there has been an increase in 'agricultural' land. Like the
Amazon basin, the far east, the foothills of the Himalayas .....
However a fair bit of that is unsustainable due to steep slopes and high
rainfall resulting in, after a while, no soil. Although I have to admit
that rubber plantations and palm oil seem to handle slopes well, I
wouldn't think that you would want *too* much tropical rainforest
destroyed to feed the starving population. Would you?

>really oughtn't to bother too much about. 

Don't kid yourself. You are going to see major ecological disaster as 
all wild areas are stripped and burned and turned into agricultural land 
for food. OK, it may only last a few years, but it feeds a peasant and 
his family then, and his several million compatriots. You can write off 
the African wildlife too, whilst you are at it. When your family and 
children are starving and you have a rifle, it's tough on elephants. 
When there's millions starving ......

I think I would prefer modern agriculture, and keep the rain forest and
African wildlife, myself.

>We will be much better

Try it. It's easy to sell all you have, buy a farm and try to live 
entirely from it. What's more you will still be able to get cheap 
healthcare, steel, spares etc etc from the majority of the population 
who live conventionally. It shouldn't be a problem for you then.

>feel that we can carry on eating biocides and get away with it?

Considering that plants contain large quantities of naturally produced,
and frequently rather hazardous insecticides and worse to stave off
those who would eat them, we have been doing it from the dawn of time.
These toxins are not tested for safety and are in truly vast quantity
compared to the man-made ones left as residues. So, keep up the spraying
and keep up the food production. Millions that way are kept from dying
of starvation (death definite) this way. Those in the wealth West who
worry about these things can afford organic, so why should they worry?

>Whatever we do (that Mother Nature doesn't like) will be paid for.

Nature doesn't give a hoot. Try working alongside her for a few years.
She is red in tooth and claw, and totally indifferent to anythings
survival. Blow it, and die, is her motto. So it's best to nudge her
gently in your direction.  :-)

>(bordering on negative) to me. 

Eh? I'm not giving up.

>Haven't you got any hope?

Plenty. I just don't expect miracles, I live with the world as it is and
hope for progress. World population has every chance of falling in the
next couple of centuries, and slowing down drastically in the next few
decades. Given the existing populations you can't really hope for much
better unless you enjoy mass death amoungst our fellow humans. So we
gotta *try* to feed the world for a while yet. I actually don't see
billions dying of disease and starvation as a good thing, they are all
humans and deserve better.

>Are you perhaps an existentialist? 

No, a realist.

>Is your signature something you believe in or is it merely meant to

You can take it how you like. I think it has some of both, most people
smile but see the point.

---

From: [email-masked] (Nancy Dooley)
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 10:29:18

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Jody Cline) writes:
>From: [email-masked] (Jody Cline)
>Subject: Re: British Beef Situation
>Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 23:36:22 GMT

>have lots of concrete in the US.

Not only that, but many times the relief foodstuffs are stolen (or taken) and 
sold on the black market, thus removing them from the people who need them.

Nancy Dooley

"Celebrate our State."  IOWA'S Sesquicentennial year, 1846-1996.

---

From: [email-masked] (Nathan D. Justus)
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 96 00:55:41 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
>this assumption is unjustified in practice IMHO. We can discuss this in

Actually, yes I am interested - partly because I know very little about 
farming practices in the UK.  As I've said before I am not a farmer, nor have 
I been one, however, I have done a small amount of research on this topic 
-both book and some observation (I have a sister in law who is a farmer)

>Who is Rohdale? How are they doing it? What is their criteria? What 

Rodale is a research organization here in the USA.  If you'd like, I'll find 
an address/contact info for you.  They also publish some wonderful (and other 
not so wonderful) books - one of their notables is a cookbook called 'stocking 
up' which has lots of interesting recipes for things you can can, freeze, 
smoke, etc.  (I'm not a big fan of some of their recipes - they rely a lot on 
honey for sweetener which I can't stand - honey has a nice flavor, but not as 
a total replacement for white sugar in baked goods, unless, of course, you're 
making a honey cake or something)

>trouble. The correct amount of potash results in a massive overdose of 

Yes, I agree.  And I never did say that we shouldn't rely on proper analysis 
of the fertilizer being used.  What I did say - or thought I said, though I 
may not have stressed it - is that if we don't build the soil, but rather 
simply allow it to keep turning into dust-like textures, we're killing the 
croplands. 
>If you get Colorado beetle you are in serious trouble.

This is true.  However, biological controls for insects also exist.  And even 
if we used chemicals - there are chemicals that are less destructive to the 
environment.  It's all about _choices_ for what we use.

personally, I see no reason to go back to the dark ages - we've learned a lot 
in the last few centuries, why throw it away?  I only believe that we need to 
consider our actions in light of long term effects of them - who would have 
thought, forty years ago, for example, that disposal of radioactive waste from 
nuclear power stations would become such a big problem?  Or the decomissioning 
of the stations themselves?

>country doesn't provide remotely enough manure to do it.

Yes, it is amazing that we don't have enough sh*t to go around, isn't it :-)
I would think that between the British and US governments we'd have more than 
enough, alas...

Of course, we're not set up for real stable state recycling - where _all_ our 
organic wastes go back to the land.  That would take massive, massive 
enginering efforts and wholesale changes to society.

And I certainly must defer to your firsthand experience of dealing with the 
land - however, if your farm was farmed semi-organically, you used bag 
fertilizer as a supplement, and still worked to keep the soil healthy, this is 
the type of land care that I am thinking of - the thing that I was thinking 
was so bad is something that happens here - where there are so many chemicals 
dumped on the soil all the insects die, and the land becomes essentially dead 
dust.

Nathan

---

From: Oz <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 09:45:42 +0100

In article <[email-masked]>, "Nathan D. Justus"
<[email-masked]> writes
>of the fertilizer being used.  

Bear in mind that manure comes with whatever nutrients it has. It is a 
highly variable product with uncontrollable RATIOS. As a result it is 
virtually impossible to use it completely efficiently on it's own. 
Rotations can help here, but the problem is essentially that manure 
wasn't designed to maximise crop production and minimise nutrient
wastage.

>What I did say - or thought I said, though I 

I doubt you will find any farmer who disagrees with you here, or any who 
does not have this in mind. After all the soil is his livelihood, of 
course he does his best to look after it.

>This is true.  However, biological controls for insects also exist.  

I don't know of any on a field scale though they do exist on the
continental scale. Screwfly in the US, and an insect pest of pricklly
pear in Australia come to mind. They are, I believe, common in
greenhouse agriculture.

>And even 

I don't know about the US, but chemicals that are destructive to the 
environment are not permitted in UK. In this area we must be careful to 
distinguish between chemical usage in the 50's and 60's when much less 
was known about accumulation and toxicity outside the target, and
several mistakes were made. It is, for example, vastly harder and hugely
more expensive to register an agrochemical these days than a
pharmaceutical product because of all the testing that is required.

>of the stations themselves?

Nimby?

The long term effects of chemicals is already tested for. Since the
agrochemical companies pay there is no restriction on how many tests are
asked for. Of course the whole population pays in the end, but it's more
spread out.

>enginering efforts and wholesale changes to society.

Actually in the UK away from ports disposal by application to land is 
normal (after treatment)from non-industrial sources. Since the sewage 
companies charge very heavily for contaminated wastes, the contamination 
of sewage by toxic compounds has markedly reduced. Since dumping at sea 
is no longer permitted the UK must be heading towards a high proportion 
of sewage sludge to be utilised on land. I would be surprised if the US 
wasn't similar, if rather less obvious.

>dumped on the soil all the insects die, and the land becomes essentially dead 

Er, no. You have got it backwards. Our predecessors farmed semi-
organically and the result was nutrient-poor soil with very low soil 
organic matter, low yields and few earthworms. We are most definitely 
NOT organic. 

There are quite a lot of things that people forget who are not involved 
with agriculture. My examples apply to the UK.

Firstly unless nothing is exported from the farm, nutrient levels will 
fall because of the nutrients that inevitably leave the farm in the 
produce. There is nothing you can do about that unless you become 
entirely self-sufficient, sell no produce and recycle your sewage. Even 
then you will lose some nutrients like sulphur and potash. Sulphur you 
can get from the air if it's adequately polluted with SO2, but others, 
like potash are a problem. There are a number of nutrients like this. So 
unless you import nutrients the fertility of your soil MUST slowly 
decrease.

Secondly organic matter recycled through the soil is dependant on yield. 
So a long term organic cereal crop is likely to yield (UK) about 1.5T/ac 
give or take half a tonne. Round figures indicate (including roots) that 
1/4 to 1/3 of the organic matter produced by the plant ends up as crop. 
The rest is straw and roots. So this crop will have produced about 4T/ac 
of residues that are returned to the soil to maintain soil organic 
matter levels. Note that manure (solid) is about 85% water, so this is 
equivalent to about 25T of manure/ac, which is a huge amount way, way, 
in excess of what would be *applied* when spreading muck. Now consider a 
high yielding modern crop of about 3.5T/ac, no lets take a moderate one 
of 3T/ac. This delivers double the organic matter to the soil equivalent 
to 50T of manure/ac. Now it's not hard to see why high yielding crops 
result in higher soil organic matter and thus higher yields in soils of 
higher organic matter (and nutrients for that matter). This stabilises
at a higher level of organic matter in the soil for the non-organic
intensive cropping system.

So the entire subject deserves greater thought than you might expect at 
first glance.

Enough for now.

---

From: Oz <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 09:56:27 +0100

Nimby?

Enough for now.

---

From: [email-masked] (Tracy Aquilla)
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 96 13:55:48 GMT

In Article <[email-masked]>, cmb
<[email-masked]> wrote:
>producing healthy food.

You seem to be making the assumption that: (a) organic = "more sustainable"
and (b) organic = "healthy", implying that conventionally-grown products
aren't. Many studies have been conducted to this effect and I'm not aware of
any which have shown a significant increase in the nutritional/health value
of organically grown products. This is simply folklore, and is not borne out
by any reliable data.

>there are are many 'cottage farmers' doing very

I doubt this is true, but I guess this idea looks pretty good on the
surface. Fact is, home owners and home gardeners use a LOT of nasty
chemicals, and most of them don't really know what the stuff even is, nor
how to handle it properly. I believe if everyone (most of whom are
completely inexperienced) were growing things at home, as in your example,
it wouldn't be all clean and healthy as you seem to imply, but rather,
there'd be an increase in the use of the pesticides, fertilizers, and even
the fossil fuels so many people seem to frown upon.
Tracy

---

From: [email-masked] (David Scott Libby)
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 09:09:00 GMT

>of organically grown products. This is simply folklore, and is not borne out

Tracy,

Here is an extract of a recent report from Rutgers University
entitled "Variation in Mineral Content in Vegetables" (Firman
E.Bear report).

In this study, the inorganic vegetables were bought at a standard
supermarket and compared with organic vegetables grown in
naturally-fertilised soil. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                        |                      |
Percentage of Dry Weight| Millequivalents      | Trace Elements in 
                        | per 100gm Dry Weight | Parts per Million
*(1) Total Ash/ Nineral |                      | (Dry Matter)
     Matter             |                      |
                        |                      |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
             *(1)    P  | Ca    Mg   K     Na    B   Mn  Fe  Cu  Co
--------------------------------------------------------------------
SNAP BEANS
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Organic     10.45  0.36 | 40.5  60.0 99.7  8.6 | 73  60  227 69  .26
Non-Org     4.04   0.22 | 15.5  14.8 29.1  0.0 | 10  2   10  3   .00
--------------------------------------------------------------------
CABBAGE     
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Organic     10.38  0.38 | 60.0  43.6 148.3 20.4| 42  13  94  48  .15
Non-Org     6.12   0.18 | 17.5  15.6 53.7  0.8 | 7   2   20  0.4 .00
--------------------------------------------------------------------
LETTUCE
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Organic     24.48  0.43 | 71.0  49.3 176.5 12.2| 37  169 516 60  .19
Non-Org     7.01   0.22 | 16.0  13.1 53.7  0.0 | 6   1   9   3   .00
--------------------------------------------------------------------
TOMATOES
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Organic     14.20  0.35 | 23.0  59.2 148.3 6.5 | 36  68 1938 53  .63
Non-Org     6.07   0.16 | 4.5   4.5  58.8  0.0 | 5   1    1  0   .00
--------------------------------------------------------------------
SPINACH
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Organic     28.56  0.52 | 96.0 203.9 257.0 69.5| 88 117 1584 32  .25
Non-Org     12.38  0.27 | 47.5  46.9  84.6  0.8| 12  1   19  0.5 .20
--------------------------------------------------------------------

CONCLUSION: Commercially grown, inorganic vegetables are very low in mineral
and trace mineral content.

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

Obviously, the way you interpret these results is up to you.

---

From: Oz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 19:47:01 +0100

In article <[email-masked]>, David Scott Libby
<[email-masked]> writes
>naturally-fertilised soil. 

Frankly I doubt these figures.

Applied soil trace elements, Brian E. Davies ISBN 0471 27625 1 quotes
for levels in leaves: (ppm)

        Deficient       Sufficient      Excessive or Toxic
Cu      <4              5-20            >20
Fe      <50             50-250          not known
Mn      <20             20-500          >500
Zn      <20             25-150          >400

Whilst there are variations between species the deficiency levels can be
considered pretty safe although some species may be deficient at higher
levels.

The very high levels of copper in the organic samples are either
indicative of having been grown on seriously polluted soil, were
inadequately washed before sampling (ie a crummy and useless analyst),
or show the entire analysis to have been seriously compromised. These
levels are well above the toxic level for copper. In short, the results
are garbage.

The iron levels in the 'supermarket' vegatables is so low that serious
chlorosis would be obvious and the plants took visibly sick (dead, is
probably a better description). Since supermarkets would instantly
reject such produce, I don't believe these either. The same applies to
manganese, these crops would have died in the field long before being
harvested. In short these results are total garbage.

The total ash contents are also rather strange. 10.4% total ash for
organic cabbage vs 6.1 for supermarket. The typical analysis I have for
drumhead cabbage is 11%. Since total ash typically contains quite a bit
of silica it can be rather variable, I suppose. I am being charitable
here.

You do not give protein levels. This is unfortunate.

I would typically expect organic produce to have one or two of
potassiun, phosphorus or protein high and one or two low compared to
conventionally grown produce. This would reflect the imbalance of
available plant nutrients, for example the potash levels are very high
which is classic for a nitrogen deficient (or over fertilised with
potash) soil since plants always take all the potash out they can scour
>from  the soil. Since the phosphate levels are high (assuming a missed
decimal point as they should be 2-4%) I would guess a shortage of
nitrogen. Of course I might also suspect the figures themselves as being
a mite bogus.

If you explain what you mean by milliequivalents I will comment further,
although the plain inaccuracies would tend me to think that someone with
little knowledge has dreamed them up for popular consumption.

---

From: [email-masked] (David Scott Libby)
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 19:13:25 GMT

>Frankly I doubt these figures.

You would.

********************************************************
David Libby:  112 Kedleston Rd, Derby, DE22 1FW, England
Tel: 01332 736775, Fax too but please ring first.
********************************************************

---

From: Oz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 06:44:14 +0100

In article <[email-masked]>, David Scott Libby
<[email-masked]> writes
>>Frankly I doubt these figures.

And so would you if you just looked up what sort of figures you should 
be expecting. Try a few textbooks and references, or do you think that 
they are giving incorrect figures just to catch out those who are pro-
organic?

For farmers farming on deficient soils, or soils with excessive levels, 
these figures are not some advertising guff, you know. They are critical 
to growing a crop. As a result the figures are rather well known so if 
you go quoting silly ones, you are going to get picked up on it.

Sorry about that.

---

From: cmb <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 08:42:52 +0100

In article <[email-masked]>, Oz
<[email-masked]> writes
>Frankly I doubt these figures.
if figures mean a lot to you, by all means enjoy them.  i prefer to rely
on commonsense and experience; if it tastes better and hasn't been
treated with chemicals i think it is better for me and will grow/buy
accordingly. looking back on Oz's numerous postings i can only recall
one positive one (replying to an 11 year old's survey) - perhaps that is
the real Oz?  the rest is just sent to stir us up.... 
cmb

---

From: Oz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 13:28:10 +0100

In article <[email-masked]>, cmb
<[email-masked]> writes
>if figures mean a lot to you, by all means enjoy them.  

If not, don't quote erronious ones.

>i prefer to rely
>on commonsense and experience; if it tastes better 

All for that. That's why I grow a number of vegetables myself.

>and hasn't been
>accordingly. 

I have no problem with this. If that's what you think it's fine, no
problem. If you start telling me I will grow two heads if I eat
conventionally grown produce because of unproven, or even proven untrue,
reasons then I presume that you will not object to me pointing it out?

>looking back on Oz's numerous postings i can only recall

Perhaps you would like me to post to say I agree with something. This is 
usually classified as noise unless you have something to add, so on the 
whole I avoid it.

You will note that I don't have any problem with organic growers, indeed 
I wish them the very best of luck and have said so in the past. 
Personally I eat free range eggs, but cannot distinguish between them 
and battery, I grow and eat various beans and the difference in eating 
is spectacular compared to supermarket fare. However I have also eaten 
field grown beans that I have personally picked at the right stage of 
growth and eaten shortly afterwards and these are indistinguishable from 
my own home grown ones, although I admit that some varieties are worse 
than others. In case you think I have little sense of taste or smell I 
would like to point out that I do the majority of the cooking in this 
house and often pick out flavourings when I eat out that others cannot 
spot or identify. I often crib these for my own recipes.

---

From: [email-masked] (Torsten Brinch)
Date: 1 May 1996 11:15:38 GMT

David Scott Libby wrote:

: Here is an extract of a recent report from Rutgers University
: entitled "Variation in Mineral Content in Vegetables" (Firman
: E.Bear report).
<snip -- Data in original post>

: CONCLUSION: Commercially grown, inorganic vegetables are very low in mineral
: and trace mineral content.

David,

With the data, that you have posted, it is no wonder that you come to
this conclusion. But there have been made other attempts to measure
the difference in the nutrient, vitamin and mineral content in
organic vs. non-organic produce, and it has been largely impossible
to detect any consistent difference.

The authories involved in licensing and control of organic produce
would love to have such amazing differences to work with -- If 
they were to be generally expected, which they are not.

Pesticides, environmental effects? Well that is another
story. Suffice to say that if you don't care about anything but
nutrients, vitamins and mineral content of your food,
non-organic food will generally be quite OK for you.

Don't get me wrong. I am not bashing organic production of
food. Organic food is more than 90 % of my diet. 

Kind regards,

Torsten

--
Where man is not nature is barren.
 
                                (Proverbs of hell:William Blake)