Re: soil fertility or what you eat?

[Guest guest]

--- In , Idol <Idol@c...>

wrote:

> Chi-

>

> >Perhaps you are remembering the post I made about the cattle

> >choosing weeds over blue grass and white clover based on the

> >differing soil fertility

> No, actually I was referring to a post in which you discussed

> your own diet. I think you mentioned that at one point,

> bread was a major component of your diet.

:

You seem to be talking about two points here, not one. As I

mentioned in my last post, I have never had the choice to choose

foods based on the soil fertility where the food grew.

With respect to bread, it is a major component of my diet, but not a

major component of my nutrition. The major component of my diet that

is the major component of my nutrition is the milk, butter and

cheese I eat. My statements are based on the experimental work of

Weston Price, please see the chapter in the supplement regarding the

importance of a vitamin-like activator in the diet. Milk, butter and

cheese might contain this activator, but bread does not contain this

activator. My choice of food is based on Price's demonstration that

it's not what is in the food that kills us, but rather what isn't.

In addition, when you get the nutrition you require (if you can),

you can then eat nutrient poor food and not suffer consequences.

> Well, sure, but in this case you're really comparing apples

> to apples.

Actually I think I was comparing apples to oranges. What I was

pointing out in this choice that I would choose based on soil

fertility, not on whether it was an apple or an orange.

> What if you had the choice between a loaf of bread made

> traditionally from heirloom non-hybrid grains grown on

> very fertile soil and a liver from a cow raised organically

> exclusively on pasture (grass and weeds) but on soil of

> only medium fertility? Animals after all (can) serve

> as nutrient-concentrators: they eat lots of grain, or grass,

> or other animals, or whatever their natural food is

> (or whatever crap we feed them) and at least to some degree,

> they aggregate a lot of those nutrients. It seems to me

> that the cow's soil would have to be pretty darn poor before

> its liver could possibly fail to exceed the nutrient value

> of even the best possible loaf of bread.

I wouldn't choose the liver because I don't like liver. I wouldn't

choose any bread as a basis for nutrition in my diet.

> Again, I don't mean to discount the importance of pursuing

> the highest possible soil fertility (as difficult as that is

> in this benighted world) but the choice of the types of

> foods to eat is also very important.

Based on the scientific evidence presented by Albrecht in

the papers he left to Acres, U.S.A., some of which they have

published, I believe compared to the level of soil fertility that

produced the food, the choice of the type of food to eat is far less

important, certainly not very important. You can disagree with this

if you want, but I would suggest reading Albrecht's evidence and

then offer scientific evidence to refute Albrecht's. If you can

offer evidence that refutes Albrecht's evidence, I am certainly

ready to change my mind. {I would also suggest presenting evidence

that would refute the evidence in " Soil Grass and Cancer " by Voisin.

On the cover it says that the health of animals and man is linked to

the mineral balance of the soil. It doesn't say that the health of

animals and man is linked to the type of food they eat. Again, many

scientific repeatable experiment are referenced in this publication.

I would be happy to review evidence that counters Voisin's.)

Chi