On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 18:10:34 +0100, "pearl"
posted:

"Moosh" wrote in message ...
On Thu, 1 Apr 2004 16:35:42 +0100, "pearl"
posted:

"Moosh" wrote in message news On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 16:04:23 +0100, "pearl"
posted:

From; 'The mineral content of organic food - Rutgers University USA

Trace Elements.
Parts per million
Dry matter

Vegetable: Cobalt
Snap Beans
Organic 0.26
Non-organic 0
Cabbage
Organic 0.15
Non-organic 0
Lettuce
Organic 0.19
Non-organic 0
Tomatoes
Organic 0.63
Non-organic 0
Spinach
Organic 0.25
Non-organic 0.2

http://www.organicnutrition.co.uk/wh...whyorganic.htm


This is an extremely poor reference source.

Again- you were given a reference.

And you think that organic propaganda is a good source of unbiased
information? Try again.

A study by Rutgers University isn't 'biased organic propaganda'. Try again.

Many American universities are not what they would appear. I've seen
much utter crap published on the web by often reputable institutions.
(Well under the banner of the university -- perhaps they would pull
the rug if they knew what crap some folks portray as coming from them)
You seem to think that just because something is written, it has some
credence.

The cobalt in plants depends on the cobalt in the soils. Many
conventional ag soils are rich in cobalt, and when grazing animals the
cobalt, if low, will be ammended.

'Mineral content: This may be the most important nutritional difference
between organic and regular produce since heavy use of fertilizer inhibits
absorption of some minerals, which are likely to be at lower levels to
begin with in soils that have been abused. This may be caused in part
by the lack of beneficial mycorrhizae fungi on the roots since high levels
of fertilizer tend to kill them. Standard diets tend to be low in various
minerals, resulting in a variety of problems including osteoporosis.
http://math.ucsd.edu/~ebender/Health...s/organic.html

A pathetic reference, sorry.
Above it says "may" -- but it isn't, except in organic biased
propaganda.
Assuming that conventional farmers use high levels of fertilisers and
that they abuse their soils is just as silly as assuming that organic
farmers do the same. Organic farmers are just prevented from
replenishing the nutrients that are exported in the crop.

Time you supplied some evidence to support your claims.

No need. Unless you can tell us exactly where the exported potassium
(for instance) is replaced in organic farms. If you can, then it might
be worth digging up some of the masses of evidenvce I've plowed
through in a lifetime of interest in things agricultural

Organic methods preclude all of this
ammendment and so, on average, organic grown will be lower in cobalt.

'The emerging nutritional crisis of B12 deficiency calls for remedial action in
the macro- as well as micro-environment. Broad-spectrum remineralization
of topsoils using crushed rock or dried seaweed from ocean areas known
to contain sufficient cobalt can reestablish mineral balances necessary for
healthy food supply able to fulfill our requirement, both direct and indirect,
for B12 .

And how much diesel are you going to burn carting seaweed to Kansas?

I'd like to see freight powered by sustainable-energy sources.
Objections?

So would we all, but there ain't none, sorry. The best I can figure is
nuclear electricity and synthetic diesel oil. But until that
eventuates (as I hope it will when gas reaches $10 per gallon) then we
have to use cheap fossil diesel oil. But you didn't answer my question
about the unsustainability of seaweed use.

Using seaweed should be banned. It is unsustainable for the seaboard
environment.

Harvested sustainably it needn't be. Better stop bottom trawling, though.
http://www.google.ie/search?num=20&h...awling&spell=1

Better stop lots of thing, like breeding so fast

The cobalt connection is especially relevant to us growing our own
food, since cobalt-deficient areas likely are well-established. Beyond promoting
remineralization to the farm community, we can adopt the practice in our gardens.'
http://www.championtrees.org/topsoil/b12coblt.htm

Crushed rock is vitually useless unless you have hundreds of years to
wait, or you crush it so fine using inordinate amounts of precious
energy.

Again, with the will, in time, energy from sustainable-energy sources.

Energy is really in short supply. Wasting it in grinding mined rocks
is rather silly when a drop of chemically extracted cobalt cholride is
so efficient.

And anyway, most organic silliness precludes quarrying of anything.

Not silliness at all. Industrial quarrying can be very destructive.

Ummm, so can doing anything that humans do, but.....

Although some allow toxic and persistent Bordeaux mixture on grape
vines Go figure. Poisons the pickers.

More info' please.

Bordeaux mixture (calcium copper hydroxide or similar) is allowed as a
fungicide in vineyards Copper is toxic and hangs around forever.
Workers have been poisoned. The only reason it is allowed is
hypocritical pragmatism. Nothing else works except a dozen or so
almost harmless synthetic fungicides that don't persist at all.
These however are "nasty chemicals" not like loverly old Bordeaux
mixture which grandpa used to make himself.

What is wrong with adding minuscule amounts of cobalt chloride to the
irrigation water? That's what I did when I had large fishponds.

That might work.

It does work, but organic growing bans it. That's the point. Many of
their silly rules are totally counterproductive and driven by ignorant
dogma.

Try a more balanced reference like USDA or similar.

It should be noted that in the UK 'organic' is the same as 'sustainable'
in the US. I'm aware that 'organic' farming in the US isn't the real deal.

Organic in the US varies from state to state. Each one has its own
ridiculous list of preclusions.
No agriculture is sustainable. The closest will be where the nutrients
are replenished as they are used up.

'Incorporating organic matter aids in sustaining the organic
content of the soil. However, organic matter cannot be built
up permanently in the soil because it continually decomposes
and disappears; soil building must be a continual process
in the garden. ......
http://www.ext.vt.edu/pubs/envirohor...1/426-711.html

Obvious for anyone who knows a bit about soil. So what has this to do
with organic? I know many many farmers who amend their soils with OM.

Using leaves for composting
Since most trees are deep-rooted, they absorb minerals from deep
in the soil and a good portion of these minerals go into the leaves.
http://www.compostguide.com/using_le...omposting.html

And a good portion of these minerals are reabsorbed by the tree before
the leaf is dropped. Anyways, this only works for a somewhat longer
time, and of course assumes that the subsoil has any of the required
minerals in the first place. Taking the leaves from under the tree is
robbing from the tree to solve your food problem.

'In 1991, Dr. Sanchez accepted a position as the head of ICRAF
in Nairobi, Kenya. There, he quickly discovered that African
agricultural production lagged due to the extremely depleted nature
of the soil. Dr. Sanchez' most enduring contribution to ending
world hunger has been his development of the means to replenish
crucial nutrients in exhausted soils, through the development and
promotion of agroforestry. This practice of planting trees on farms,
when combined with adding locally available rock phosphate to
the soil, has provided farmers in Africa with a way to fertilize
their soils inexpensively and naturally, without relying on costly
chemical fertilizers.

Lucky them, to have nutrients below that the trees can drag up. Try
that on 2000' of ancient sand like I live on.
And how long will this carry on? Trees cut out light and thus cut down
production of food.
The mining of rock phosphate is likely useless (depending on the type
of rock}, notwithstanding the silly proscription by organics on
mining.

The 150,000 small scale farmers who are utilizing Dr. Sanchez'
methods are experiencing greatly increased yields, in some cases
200% to 400% above previous plantings. In response to this
success, ICRAF plans to help African farmers plant 5.5 billion
more trees over the next decade, the equivalent of another
tropical rainforest. ICRAF's goal is to move 20 million people
out of poverty and remove more that 100 million tons of CO2
from the air with this project.'

http://www.worldfoodprize.org/2002La...essrelease.htm

Trees are almost insignificant wrt CO2 in the atmosphere. Not that
growing trees isn't a nice thing to do. Perhaps even food trees.
But as I said above this might work for a short period, or it might
not. When you're starting from such a low base of fertitlity, almost
any tiny increase will have a marked effect on productivity.