Re: milk and cream

[Guest guest]

Arrggghhh.

I knew Claravale was somewhat grain fed--but with GMO's??

Does this come through the milk?

Would Strauss, though pasteurized., be a better choice?

[Guest guest]

> I knew Claravale was somewhat grain fed--but with GMO's??

> Does this come through the milk?

> Would Strauss, though pasteurized., be a better choice?

>

Hi :

According to Price and Pottenger, several factors affect the

nutritional value of milk. Pottenger found that when dry feed was

used the milk the cows produced was almost as low in nutrition as

pasteurized milk from cows on green grass. Price found the

nutritional value of milk varied seasonally and when the cows were on

green grass, the peak nutritional value was determined by soil

fertility.

Today I think we need to look at a new factor. Cattle breeds have

been modified much like hybrid crop varieties, to produce high volume

yield with no concern about nutritional value. Just as I don't think

we should eat super sweet corn because it has little, if any,

nutritional value, I don't think we should be drinking raw milk from

grass fed cows if the breed of cows is one of the modern high volume

breeds.

To judge the quality of milk and butter you might ask the farmer what

breed of dairy cow he has and what color his butter is in the peak

spring and fall seasons. (Price showed the highest nutritional butter

was brilliant yellow or even orange.)

With respect to whether the grain is GMO or not, I doubt that it

amkes much difference in the nutritional value of the milk. I sugges

that it isn't what is in our food that kills us, but what isn't. In

choosing between Claraville and Strauss you may simply be choosing

between being in the frying pan or jumping into the fire.

By the way, if consumers ever decide they want farmers to produce

milk or any food for nutritional value instead of for bulk yield,

they will have to pay more for the resulting smaller crop that will

produce more total nutrition than the larger crop currently produced.

You can't expect a farmer to change from bulk yield production to

high nutrition production when the first result is his income is

substantially lowered. After all, the consumer will save on

chemotherapy and other medical costs which will become unnecessary.

Chi

[Guest guest]

> Now the reason these modern dairies can't produce nutritious milk

> is that they have been forced by greed or society to produce

> cheap food by over feeding of grain , concentrating them so one man

> can take care of more cows and a number of other reasons to

> compete.

Hi :

I don't think anyone has forced modern dairies to do anything. Isn't

America the land of liberty where you can make your own choices? I

think stupidity may be part of the problem if producing food with no

concern for nutrition could be considered stupid.

> I have found out that these hybrid cows aren't probably what I want

> to use because they try to produce more milk than there diet

> (grass) will sustain. I personally think that about any breed

> of cow will work IF we find the right genetics. These will

> probably be the genetics our ancestors used to use.

When Weston Price did his studies in the 1930's on the nutritional

value of milk and butter, he did not mention that the breed of dairy

cow was a factor in determining the nutritional value. One might

assume, since he didn't mention it, it was not a factor. So as long

as your dairy herd has comparable genetics and, hence, comparable

production to the 1930's dairy cows then you should be able to

produce milk and butter comparable to what Weston Price used in his

clinical experiments. I would think the modern Holstein does not have

comparable genetics and comparable production to a Holstein in the

1930's. Do you think your Jersey herd has comparable genetics and

production to the 1930's Jerseys?

Were bison once found where your farm is?

> Where breed may come into play is that some breeds produce more fat

> than others and since that is where most of the nutrients are

> some produce more nutrients such as CLA's than others.

In his nutritional studies of over 20,000 dairy samples, Weston Price

found that the fat content of the milk was not an indicator of the

nutritional value.

> As far as GMO's I don't know that they are bad for me but until

> modern science can prove they are good for me, I don't want

> a thing to do with them!!!

The way modern science proves a product is good for a farmer is by

showing the farmer it will make him more profitable. Modern

agricultural science has nothing to do with understanding nutrition.

The farmer who grows hybid crops while avoiding GMOs just doesn't

understand nutrition. It's the same for a consumer who eats hybid

crops while avoiding GMOs. The consumer does not understand nutrition

either or why hybrids and GMOs were created in the first place.

Chi

[Guest guest]

Hi All

Being a 100% grass-fed dairy farmer I think I can shed some light on the

breed of cow and how it plays a role in the nutritional value of your milk.

As I stated in my last post a while back the average life of a dairy cow in

the modern conventional dairies is 1.6 lactation's. To put it point blank

these cows are sick and dying faster than nature can produce new heifers to

replace them. Cows in a grass based dairy will last 12 to 13 lactation's or

longer. They are healthy. This plays a big role in that cow producing a

nutritious glass of milk. Now the reason these modern dairies can't produce

nutritious milk is that they have been forced by greed or society to produce

cheap food by over feeding of grain , concentrating them so one man can take

care of more cows and a number of other reasons to compete. Sad I think but

this is the way it is.

I have found out that these hybrid cows aren't probably what I want to use

because they try to produce more milk than there diet (grass) will sustain. I

personally think that about any breed of cow will work IF we find the right

genetics. These will probably be the genetics our ancestors used to use.

Where breed may come into play is that some breeds produce more fat than

others and since that is where most of the nutrients are some produce more

nutrients such as CLA's than others. We have Jersey based herd.

This is why you need to do everything is your power to know your dairyman.

We sell about 100 gallon of raw milk a week right out of our tank. Here in

Nebraska the law lets us do that if you bring your container to our farm and

pick it up. I know some of you think this sound inconvenient. But what is the

price of good health worth to you? We have people driving 120 miles to get

milk. They come once a month and freeze part of it then thaw it as they need

it. There are all kinds of workable solutions.

As far as GMO's I don't know that they are bad for me but until modern

science can prove they are good for me, I don't want a thing to do with

them!!!

ynos@... wrote:

>

> > I knew Claravale was somewhat grain fed--but with GMO's??

> > Does this come through the milk?

> > Would Strauss, though pasteurized., be a better choice?

> >

>

> Hi :

> According to Price and Pottenger, several factors affect the

> nutritional value of milk. Pottenger found that when dry feed was

> used the milk the cows produced was almost as low in nutrition as

> pasteurized milk from cows on green grass. Price found the

> nutritional value of milk varied seasonally and when the cows were on

> green grass, the peak nutritional value was determined by soil

> fertility.

> Today I think we need to look at a new factor. Cattle breeds have

> been modified much like hybrid crop varieties, to produce high volume

> yield with no concern about nutritional value. Just as I don't think

> we should eat super sweet corn because it has little, if any,

> nutritional value, I don't think we should be drinking raw milk from

> grass fed cows if the breed of cows is one of the modern high volume

> breeds.

> To judge the quality of milk and butter you might ask the farmer what

> breed of dairy cow he has and what color his butter is in the peak

> spring and fall seasons. (Price showed the highest nutritional butter

> was brilliant yellow or even orange.)

> With respect to whether the grain is GMO or not, I doubt that it

> amkes much difference in the nutritional value of the milk. I sugges

> that it isn't what is in our food that kills us, but what isn't. In

> choosing between Claraville and Strauss you may simply be choosing

> between being in the frying pan or jumping into the fire.

> By the way, if consumers ever decide they want farmers to produce

> milk or any food for nutritional value instead of for bulk yield,

> they will have to pay more for the resulting smaller crop that will

> produce more total nutrition than the larger crop currently produced.

> You can't expect a farmer to change from bulk yield production to

> high nutrition production when the first result is his income is

> substantially lowered. After all, the consumer will save on

> chemotherapy and other medical costs which will become unnecessary.

> Chi

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> Hi Chi

>

> I guess you don't understand where I am coming from when I say

> dairies are forced to go in the direction they went.

Hi :

Perhaps not. I don't think dairies in America are forced to do

anything they don't want to do. Daries in America, farmers in America

and consumers in America are free to make the choices they want. I

understand you are now in a war to protect this freedom.

> First let me say I am on your side.

I appreciate farmers who are trying to do a good job with nutrition

without going broke. I appreciate a consumer who wants to pay such a

farmer a fair price and is willing to pay more if the nutritional

value of the food is further increased. I only seek to have both the

farmer and the consumer understand what nutrition is and how it is

created. The works of Price, Albrecht and Voisin are helpful in

understanding how nutrition is created and how to recognize it.

When I get the chance, I always suggest to the standard dairy farmer

that, if he is concerned about his own family's nutrition, he might

want to get a single dairy cow that is not a high producing breed and

keep it on green grass in season and on hay in winter to produce milk

for his own family. I tell him not to worry about the milk he ships

out because it's going to be pasteurized anyway.

> If a dairyman and his family are put in a corner with financial

> disaster ahead don't judge him or call him stupid for taking a

> road we don't agree with unless you have faced these

> situations your self.

I actually think the production of food with no regard to nutrition

is a human species stupidity problem. I certainly don't place the

blame for that on the farmer. The consumer is far more to blame.

After all the consumer spends the money and creates the demand. If

the consumers wanted nutritious food, then they would be willing to

pay for it. Buy they don't, they prefer to spend their money on

research for drug treatments for cancer where profits are the prime

motivation, not the cancer patient. That, to me, does not seem to be

an intelligent choice. I would like to live in a healthy society

where the farmer makes more money than a doctor.

> As for our genetics that work on a grass based dairy, I don't

> claim to have all the answers but I do know I need different

> genetics in my herd than the modern dairies do. And yes we

> are using the older genetics because most of the herds in the

> 1930's were grass based and these cows were bred to

> produce on a 100% forage diet. Not a high grain diet.

If your herd's genetics are comparable to the 1930's Jerseys, then

your production should also be comparable. What is your production

per cow per lactation?

> I guess jokingly I say this; I don't care for the

> temperment of bison this is why I don't try to milk them.

I was not really interested in bison but in soil fertility. So I will

ask this: what grass would be native in your area, giant blue stem or

buffalo grass? Are you in the eastern or western part of the state?

> Be careful assuming , there is new research being done on the CLA

> content of milk and the CLA's are found in the fat.

> If fat isn't important to you that is fine but don't close your

> eyes on the new research being done. These guys are on our side.

I am interested in seeing some scientific follow up to Weston Price's

work on the new vitamin-like activator he found. Price found that it

is necessary for the body in different ways including in making use

of the minerals it consumes. It " these guys are on our side " then why

aren't they doing any follow up scientific work on Weston Price's

work? After they do that, I will listen to them about CLA's. Do CLA's

prevent and cure cavaties? Activator X did. Do CLA's improve the

physical and mental health of children? Activator X did.

Of course the butter fat portion of the milk is important to me. But

I am not interested in the quantity of fat, but rather the quality of

the fat which I would determine by it's activator X content, not by

its CLA content.

> I agree completely with you on the way science proves a product is

> good for the farmer and this brings us back to the

> greed issue. Greed drives agriculture. Awful sad don't you think.

Yes , I agree with you, it's sad that greed drives agriculture.

You may not agree with me when I go a step further and state that

it's not just sad, it's also mass stupidity.

Chi

[Guest guest]

> Yes our milk production is about one third of what modern

> production is.

That's good news with respect to producing nutrition. When

people want to see more farmers producing producing milk like that I

ask them how they would like a 2/3 drop in their income.

> This is why grass-fed dairy products as you know cost more. Just a

> fact of life I guess. My family needs to eat too.

> We charged $3.00 per gallon for our milk and this is a good

> price for us and I think a fair price for our customers since

> milk in the store is priced similarly.

I disagree. I think, to be fair, your milk should be priced higher

than the milk in the store. The milk in the store isn't worth

drinking for nutritional purposes at any price. I pay Can$2.00/litre

for the milk I buy. Converted into US it would be US$1.24/litre. A

litre is a little bigger than a US quart. Milk in the stores here is

about $1.00/litre. I tell the farmer he should be charging more, in

my opinion.

> We are in Nebraska and our pasture is pretty much made up of grass

> native to our area; big blue stem ,little blue stem,

> indian grass, blue grass,smooth brome,and other native species.

The reason I asked about native grasses was because Albrecht

pointed out that bison were found where the grass named after them

was found. They weren't found further east on the plains in areas of

higher rainfall where giant blue stem was growing. Albrecht showed

that bison were found on the areas of the highest soil fertility in

the US. It's an advantage in producing nutrition for a farm to be on

soil where the bison chose to roam.

> If you ever get this direction let us know tours are free.

I would certainly like to see your operation one day. You are a long

way away but one day I might get the opportunity to visit. I like

learning.

> ps We have a two year old boy that has been raised pretty much on

> raw milk. He is 36 inches tall and about 40lbs. It is

> amazing how healthy he is. The other day his grandmother tried

> to give him store bought milk and he tasted and said uky milk

> grandma. Amazing how smart they are.

I would think children make more intelligent nutritional choices than

adults, given the opportunity to choose. I think the child is right

to push away the bitter tasting spinach and the parent is wrong for

forcing the child to eat it.

Chi

[Guest guest]

Hi Chi

I guess you don't understand where I am coming from when I say dairies are

forced to go in the direction they went . First let me say I am on your side.

If a dairyman and his family are put in a corner with financial disaster

ahead don't judge him or call him stupid for taking a road we don't agree

with unless you have faced these situations your self. I thank God every day

for allowing me to work side by side with my family and giving us open-minded

people who understand agriculture and are interested in nutritious food. If

it weren't for that I too would be working in town and our milk customers

would have one less dairy to by nutritious dairy products from.

As for our genetics that work on a grass based dairy, I don't claim to

have all the answers but I do know I need different genetics in my herd than

the modern dairies do. And yes we are using the older genetics because most

of the herds in the 1930's were grass based and these cows were bred to

produce on a 100% forage diet.

Not a high grain diet. I guess jokingly I say this; I don't care for the

temperment of bison this is why I don't try to milk them.

Be careful assuming , there is new research being done on the CLA content

of milk and the CLA's are found in the fat. If fat isn't important to you

that is fine but don't close your eyes on the new research being done. These

guys are on our side.

I agree completely with you on the way science proves a product is good

for the farmer and this brings us back to the greed issue. Greed drives

agriculture. Awful sad don't you think.

Enjoy your views.

ynos@... wrote:

>

> > Now the reason these modern dairies can't produce nutritious milk

> > is that they have been forced by greed or society to produce

> > cheap food by over feeding of grain , concentrating them so one man

> > can take care of more cows and a number of other reasons to

> > compete.

>

> Hi :

> I don't think anyone has forced modern dairies to do anything. Isn't

> America the land of liberty where you can make your own choices? I

> think stupidity may be part of the problem if producing food with no

> concern for nutrition could be considered stupid.

>

> > I have found out that these hybrid cows aren't probably what I want

> > to use because they try to produce more milk than there diet

> > (grass) will sustain. I personally think that about any breed

> > of cow will work IF we find the right genetics. These will

> > probably be the genetics our ancestors used to use.

>

> When Weston Price did his studies in the 1930's on the nutritional

> value of milk and butter, he did not mention that the breed of dairy

> cow was a factor in determining the nutritional value. One might

> assume, since he didn't mention it, it was not a factor. So as long

> as your dairy herd has comparable genetics and, hence, comparable

> production to the 1930's dairy cows then you should be able to

> produce milk and butter comparable to what Weston Price used in his

> clinical experiments. I would think the modern Holstein does not have

> comparable genetics and comparable production to a Holstein in the

> 1930's. Do you think your Jersey herd has comparable genetics and

> production to the 1930's Jerseys?

> Were bison once found where your farm is?

>

> > Where breed may come into play is that some breeds produce more fat

> > than others and since that is where most of the nutrients are

> > some produce more nutrients such as CLA's than others.

>

> In his nutritional studies of over 20,000 dairy samples, Weston Price

> found that the fat content of the milk was not an indicator of the

> nutritional value.

>

> > As far as GMO's I don't know that they are bad for me but until

> > modern science can prove they are good for me, I don't want

> > a thing to do with them!!!

>

> The way modern science proves a product is good for a farmer is by

> showing the farmer it will make him more profitable. Modern

> agricultural science has nothing to do with understanding nutrition.

> The farmer who grows hybid crops while avoiding GMOs just doesn't

> understand nutrition. It's the same for a consumer who eats hybid

> crops while avoiding GMOs. The consumer does not understand nutrition

> either or why hybrids and GMOs were created in the first place.

> Chi

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Clarvale uses Jerseys.

[Guest guest]

I think Strauss uses Holsteins, but I'm not sure. The raw butter that Ron

Strauss (different Strauss!) was supplying some of us earlier this year was

also from Holseins.

Willa

[Guest guest]

Chi

First of all I am glad you are open-minded to my thoughts. People like

you are few and TOO far between this day in age.

Yes our milk production is about one third of what modern production is.

This is why grass-fed dairy products as you know cost more. Just a fact of

life I guess. My family needs to eat too. We charged $3.00 per gallon for our

milk and this is a good price for us and I think a fair price for our

customers since milk in the store is priced similarly.

We are in Nebraska and our pasture is pretty much made up of grass native

to our area; big blue stem ,little blue stem, indian grass, blue grass,smooth

brome,and other native species.

If you ever get this direction let us know tours are free.

Enjoyed your views and open mind

ps We have a two year old boy that has been raised pretty much on raw milk.

He is 36 inches tall and about 40lbs. It is amazing how healthy he is. The

other day his grandmother tried to give him store bought milk and he tasted

and said uky milk grandma. Amazing how smart they are.

ynos@... wrote:

>

> > Hi Chi

> >

> > I guess you don't understand where I am coming from when I say

> > dairies are forced to go in the direction they went.

>

> Hi :

> Perhaps not. I don't think dairies in America are forced to do

> anything they don't want to do. Daries in America, farmers in America

> and consumers in America are free to make the choices they want. I

> understand you are now in a war to protect this freedom.

>

> > First let me say I am on your side.

>

> I appreciate farmers who are trying to do a good job with nutrition

> without going broke. I appreciate a consumer who wants to pay such a

> farmer a fair price and is willing to pay more if the nutritional

> value of the food is further increased. I only seek to have both the

> farmer and the consumer understand what nutrition is and how it is

> created. The works of Price, Albrecht and Voisin are helpful in

> understanding how nutrition is created and how to recognize it.

> When I get the chance, I always suggest to the standard dairy farmer

> that, if he is concerned about his own family's nutrition, he might

> want to get a single dairy cow that is not a high producing breed and

> keep it on green grass in season and on hay in winter to produce milk

> for his own family. I tell him not to worry about the milk he ships

> out because it's going to be pasteurized anyway.

>

> > If a dairyman and his family are put in a corner with financial

> > disaster ahead don't judge him or call him stupid for taking a

> > road we don't agree with unless you have faced these

> > situations your self.

>

> I actually think the production of food with no regard to nutrition

> is a human species stupidity problem. I certainly don't place the

> blame for that on the farmer. The consumer is far more to blame.

> After all the consumer spends the money and creates the demand. If

> the consumers wanted nutritious food, then they would be willing to

> pay for it. Buy they don't, they prefer to spend their money on

> research for drug treatments for cancer where profits are the prime

> motivation, not the cancer patient. That, to me, does not seem to be

> an intelligent choice. I would like to live in a healthy society

> where the farmer makes more money than a doctor.

>

> > As for our genetics that work on a grass based dairy, I don't

> > claim to have all the answers but I do know I need different

> > genetics in my herd than the modern dairies do. And yes we

> > are using the older genetics because most of the herds in the

> > 1930's were grass based and these cows were bred to

> > produce on a 100% forage diet. Not a high grain diet.

>

> If your herd's genetics are comparable to the 1930's Jerseys, then

> your production should also be comparable. What is your production

> per cow per lactation?

>

> > I guess jokingly I say this; I don't care for the

> > temperment of bison this is why I don't try to milk them.

>

> I was not really interested in bison but in soil fertility. So I will

> ask this: what grass would be native in your area, giant blue stem or

> buffalo grass? Are you in the eastern or western part of the state?

>

> > Be careful assuming , there is new research being done on the CLA

> > content of milk and the CLA's are found in the fat.

> > If fat isn't important to you that is fine but don't close your

> > eyes on the new research being done. These guys are on our side.

>

> I am interested in seeing some scientific follow up to Weston Price's

> work on the new vitamin-like activator he found. Price found that it

> is necessary for the body in different ways including in making use

> of the minerals it consumes. It " these guys are on our side " then why

> aren't they doing any follow up scientific work on Weston Price's

> work? After they do that, I will listen to them about CLA's. Do CLA's

> prevent and cure cavaties? Activator X did. Do CLA's improve the

> physical and mental health of children? Activator X did.

> Of course the butter fat portion of the milk is important to me. But

> I am not interested in the quantity of fat, but rather the quality of

> the fat which I would determine by it's activator X content, not by

> its CLA content.

>

> > I agree completely with you on the way science proves a product is

> > good for the farmer and this brings us back to the

> > greed issue. Greed drives agriculture. Awful sad don't you think.

>

> Yes , I agree with you, it's sad that greed drives agriculture.

> You may not agree with me when I go a step further and state that

> it's not just sad, it's also mass stupidity.

> Chi

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> To judge the quality of milk and butter you might

> ask the farmer what

> breed of dairy cow he has and what color his butter

> is in the peak

> spring and fall seasons.

Which breed does Claravale use and which does Straus

use? I have noticed that Straus butter is a nice

yellow.

>In

> choosing between Claraville and Strauss you may

> simply be choosing

> between being in the frying pan or jumping into the

> fire.

I have been looking and looking, but have yet to find

any milk locally better than these two. I've been

buying Claravale. If anyone hears of good milk

available in the greater Sacramento area, please let

me know! Would Straus sell raw milk right from their

farm? Maybe I'll contact them and find out, but I'm

assuming they won't do it. Not sure if I'd want it,

anyway, because since they're expecting it to be

pasteurized, the sanitation may not be up to snuff for

raw. I know regulation standards are lower for

pastuerized milk.

> By the way, if consumers ever decide they want

> farmers to produce

> milk or any food for nutritional value instead of

> for bulk yield,

> they will have to pay more

I'm certainly willing to pay for it. As it is,

Claravale milk costs about 4 times what regular

grocery store milk does - it works out to $12 a

gallon!

I am going to get my own milk cow (we have the

pasture), but I can't just go out and buy one today,

it will be next year at the absolute earliest. And

how would one go about finding a Jersey with

" old-fashioned " bloodlines? I know there are some

breeders here in CA, but they seem to be focused on

the needs of the modern dairy. That's part of why I'm

considering a Dexter instead, they seem to put more

emphasis on animals that do well on only pasture.

Aubin

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

--- kelly bruns <kjbruns@...> wrote:

> Hi All

> Being a 100% grass-fed dairy farmer

Wouldn't you like to move to California?

Aubin

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

--- HomeoUSA@... wrote:

> The cows are Jerseys.

Oh, sorry, didn't read that part before my message

asking what breed they had. Do you know about Straus?

> Would love to hear if anyone knows of

> other alternatives.

Me, too!

Aubin

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Very interesting discussion. Chi, you say that the bison preferred certain

soils/grasslands. This may seem like a crazy question but is there any way

to remediate or improve soils/grasslands that stretch over hundreds or

thousands of acres? I am aware of the benefits to grass of rotational

grazing and holistic management, but I was wondering if that alone could

take average land to exceptional status, or if one could add rock dust,

biodynamic preparations, or other things do to this? Native Americans did

consciously shape their ecosystems too....

Also - does anyone have suggestions for seminal, essential books to read in

this area of soil and health? Price's is a given.... Anyone familiar with

" Secrets of the Soil? "

Thanks!

> [Original Message]

> From: <ynos@...>

> < >

> Date: 11/4/2001 12:38:52 PM

> Subject: Re: milk and cream

>

>

>

> > Yes our milk production is about one third of what modern

> > production is.

>

> That's good news with respect to producing nutrition. When

> people want to see more farmers producing producing milk like that I

> ask them how they would like a 2/3 drop in their income.

>

> > This is why grass-fed dairy products as you know cost more. Just a

> > fact of life I guess. My family needs to eat too.

> > We charged $3.00 per gallon for our milk and this is a good

> > price for us and I think a fair price for our customers since

> > milk in the store is priced similarly.

>

> I disagree. I think, to be fair, your milk should be priced higher

> than the milk in the store. The milk in the store isn't worth

> drinking for nutritional purposes at any price. I pay Can$2.00/litre

> for the milk I buy. Converted into US it would be US$1.24/litre. A

> litre is a little bigger than a US quart. Milk in the stores here is

> about $1.00/litre. I tell the farmer he should be charging more, in

> my opinion.

>

> > We are in Nebraska and our pasture is pretty much made up of grass

> > native to our area; big blue stem ,little blue stem,

> > indian grass, blue grass,smooth brome,and other native species.

>

> The reason I asked about native grasses was because Albrecht

> pointed out that bison were found where the grass named after them

> was found. They weren't found further east on the plains in areas of

> higher rainfall where giant blue stem was growing. Albrecht showed

> that bison were found on the areas of the highest soil fertility in

> the US. It's an advantage in producing nutrition for a farm to be on

> soil where the bison chose to roam.

>

> > If you ever get this direction let us know tours are free.

>

> I would certainly like to see your operation one day. You are a long

> way away but one day I might get the opportunity to visit. I like

> learning.

>

> > ps We have a two year old boy that has been raised pretty much on

> > raw milk. He is 36 inches tall and about 40lbs. It is

> > amazing how healthy he is. The other day his grandmother tried

> > to give him store bought milk and he tasted and said uky milk

> > grandma. Amazing how smart they are.

>

> I would think children make more intelligent nutritional choices than

> adults, given the opportunity to choose. I think the child is right

> to push away the bitter tasting spinach and the parent is wrong for

> forcing the child to eat it.

> Chi

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear .

A great book on soil and minerals is Metabolic Aspects of Healthy by

Myer. You can order it from PPNF. Sally

[Guest guest]

> Very interesting discussion. Chi, you say that the bison preferred

> certain soils/grasslands. This may seem like a crazy

> question but is there any way to remediate or improve

> soils/grasslands that stretch over hundreds or thousands of

> acres? I am aware of the benefits to grass of rotational

> grazing and holistic management, but I was wondering if that alone

> could take average land to exceptional status, or if one could

> add rock dust, biodynamic preparations, or other things

> do to this? Native Americans did

> consciously shape their ecosystems too....

> Also - does anyone have suggestions for seminal,

> essential books to read in this area of soil and health?

> Price's is a given.... Anyone familiar with

> " Secrets of the Soil? "

Hi :

I have a copy of " Secrets of the Soil " . For other books to read I

would suggest the four volumes of " The Albrecht Papers " by

Albrecht and " Soil Grass and Cancer " by Andre Voison.

Albrecht was chairman of the department of soils at the College of

Agriculture at the University of Missouri. He contributed the chapter

titled " Food is Fabricated Soil Fertility " in the supplement

of " Nutrition and Physical Degeneration " . Prior to his death, he left

his papers to Acres, U.S.A. So far, four volumes of his papers have

been published by Acres, U.S.A. The scientific evidence he presents

is amazing, considering what is widely believed now. He shows quite

clearly that organic does not mean nutrition; that rotating crops is

harder on soil than not rotating; legumes don't build soil, they

deplete it faster; animals don't choose food by the type of food, but

rather by soil fertility; acid soil is not the problem, lack of

nutrient cations is; the health of draftees in WWII was determined by

the soil fertility where they lived; and oh so much more. I am amazed

how his work is ignored so well. It's as if we don't want to know the

truth.

Voisin was a French veterinarian who became well known for his

studies of animals at grass. " Soil Grass and Cancer " presents

scientific evidence linking the health of animals and man to the

soil. The link between cancer and the soil seems to be of no interest

to those who say they want to prevent cancer.

Clearly there must be ways to build soil fertility. Nature builds it

and destroys it over geological time periods. Perhaps we need to not

just understand how Nature destoys soil, but how Nature builds soil.

The farmer I buy my milk from is biodynamic. He has told be about a

disease his cattle had when he first started to farm. After several

years of biodynamic farming, none of his animals have the problem any

more. That would suggest his soil fertility has improved. Until this

year, he hadn't done anything other than biodynamic farming but we

are now involved in a experimental soil treatment to see if his

animals recognize any nutritional difference in the strips in the

pastures that have the treatment applied. It's a one time treatment.

The late application and the dry weather mean no results are possible

til next season. I look forward to the opinion of his cows, an

opinion I see as much more valuable than the opinion of any PhD in

nutrition.

With respect to the bison, Albrecht often used them as an example of

animals that chose low yielding crop/acre of high nutritional value

over high yielding crop/acre of low nutritional value. Albrecht shows

that bison were only found on the highest soil fertility in America,

the places that became the best places to raise healthy cattle. In

fact, you didn't raise them, you just rounded them up and counted

them. Then they were shipped east to be fattened and so become

unhealthy for human consumption. Animals don't want fattening or " go "

foods, they want body building or " grow " foods, according to Albrecht.

Chi

[Guest guest]

hi chi

this is very interesting

> that rotating crops is

> harder on soil than not rotating;

legumes don't build soil, they

> deplete it faster; animals don't choose food by the type of food,

but

> rather by soil fertility; acid soil is not the problem, lack of

> nutrient cations is;

i'm interested learning more about these arguments - about crop

rotation being worse than not rotating & about legumes depleting the

soil. the general things you come across say that crop rotation is

important because different crops take different proportions of

minerals from the soil and so in rotation you get more of a balance

over all and can addcompost containing a balance of minerals as

compared to

growing one crop and then just trying to replace the minerals that

that crop mainly uses.

you always hear that legumes are good for the soil because they take

nitrogen from the air and not the soil and so less nitrogen needs to

be replaced (i can see that that may lead to there being more nitrogen

than other minerals that the beans have used).

so can you say more about these two issues and why these arguments

(that you hear generally) are wrong or if they are right what is

missing from these arguments?

thanks

anna

[Guest guest]

> i'm interested learning more about these arguments - about crop

> rotation being worse than not rotating & about legumes depleting the

> soil. the general things you come across say that crop rotation is

> important because different crops take different proportions of

> minerals from the soil and so in rotation you get more of a balance

> over all and can addcompost containing a balance of minerals as

> compared to growing one crop and then just trying to

> replace the minerals that that crop mainly uses.

Hi :

Albrecht, the soil scientist, reported an experiment

comparing soil fertility in two plots, one planted with a crop

rotation and the other planted with the same crop year after year.

The soil fertility was similar at the beginning but the soil

fertility was lower at the end of the experiment in the plot where

the crop was rotated. This was to demonstrate, as you said, different

crops take different things from the soil, resulting in an overall

lower soil fertilty at the end of the experiment. Albrecht also talks

about climax crops in Nature that occur as mono-crops.

> you always hear that legumes are good for the soil because they take

> nitrogen from the air and not the soil and so less nitrogen needs to

> be replaced (i can see that that may lead to there being more

> nitrogen than other minerals that the beans have used).

Albrecht points out that legumes can create the highest quality

protein content. He also states that carbohydrate is easy to produce,

even in low soil fertility conditions. The wild animals always

struggle to get enough protein to be healthy enough to survive.

Although, in high soil fertility, legumes add nitrogen to the soil,

they put heavier demands on the mineral content of the soil in order

to do so. Anything that demands more from the soil is harder on soil

fertility. Crops designed by man, starting with hybrids, have

primarily been designed to demand less from the soil so that they can

produce a crop in lower soil fertility conditions. Consumers who eat

hybrids have no concern for nutrition.

By the way, he also states that legumes only fix nitrogen in high

soil fertility conditions. In low soil fertility conditions, they do

not fix nitrogen. The reason the soybean is such a good crop for the

farmer is that, as a legume, it will still produce a crop in low soil

fertility conditions. The soybean can be nutritious or not based on

the soil fertility in which it was grown. The soybean's nutritional

value, like that of any plant, is not based on its genetics or

petigree, but rather on the soil fertility in which it was grown.

When you add compost to soil remember that the compost is no better

than the soil fertility that created it. Organic farmers don't seem

to want to recognize that. Pottenger's cats provided an excellent

example of the variability of compost.

Chi

[Guest guest]

Chi & Sally,

Thanks for the info & referrals!

C

> [Original Message]

> From: <ynos@...>

> < >

> Date: 11/6/2001 5:40:00 AM

> Subject: Re: milk and cream

>

>

> > i'm interested learning more about these arguments - about crop

> > rotation being worse than not rotating & about legumes depleting the

> > soil. the general things you come across say that crop rotation is

> > important because different crops take different proportions of

> > minerals from the soil and so in rotation you get more of a balance

> > over all and can addcompost containing a balance of minerals as

> > compared to growing one crop and then just trying to

> > replace the minerals that that crop mainly uses.

>

> Hi :

> Albrecht, the soil scientist, reported an experiment

> comparing soil fertility in two plots, one planted with a crop

> rotation and the other planted with the same crop year after year.

> The soil fertility was similar at the beginning but the soil

> fertility was lower at the end of the experiment in the plot where

> the crop was rotated. This was to demonstrate, as you said, different

> crops take different things from the soil, resulting in an overall

> lower soil fertilty at the end of the experiment. Albrecht also talks

> about climax crops in Nature that occur as mono-crops.

>

> > you always hear that legumes are good for the soil because they take

> > nitrogen from the air and not the soil and so less nitrogen needs to

> > be replaced (i can see that that may lead to there being more

> > nitrogen than other minerals that the beans have used).

>

> Albrecht points out that legumes can create the highest quality

> protein content. He also states that carbohydrate is easy to produce,

> even in low soil fertility conditions. The wild animals always

> struggle to get enough protein to be healthy enough to survive.

> Although, in high soil fertility, legumes add nitrogen to the soil,

> they put heavier demands on the mineral content of the soil in order

> to do so. Anything that demands more from the soil is harder on soil

> fertility. Crops designed by man, starting with hybrids, have

> primarily been designed to demand less from the soil so that they can

> produce a crop in lower soil fertility conditions. Consumers who eat

> hybrids have no concern for nutrition.

> By the way, he also states that legumes only fix nitrogen in high

> soil fertility conditions. In low soil fertility conditions, they do

> not fix nitrogen. The reason the soybean is such a good crop for the

> farmer is that, as a legume, it will still produce a crop in low soil

> fertility conditions. The soybean can be nutritious or not based on

> the soil fertility in which it was grown. The soybean's nutritional

> value, like that of any plant, is not based on its genetics or

> petigree, but rather on the soil fertility in which it was grown.

> When you add compost to soil remember that the compost is no better

> than the soil fertility that created it. Organic farmers don't seem

> to want to recognize that. Pottenger's cats provided an excellent

> example of the variability of compost.

> Chi

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> > i'm interested learning more about these arguments - about crop

> > rotation being worse than not rotating & about legumes depleting

the

> > soil. the general things you come across say that crop rotation is

> > important because different crops take different proportions of

> > minerals from the soil and so in rotation you get more of a

balance

> > over all and can addcompost containing a balance of minerals as

> > compared to growing one crop and then just trying to

> > replace the minerals that that crop mainly uses.

>

> Hi :

> Albrecht, the soil scientist, reported an experiment

> comparing soil fertility in two plots, one planted with a crop

> rotation and the other planted with the same crop year after year.

> The soil fertility was similar at the beginning but the soil

> fertility was lower at the end of the experiment in the plot where

> the crop was rotated. This was to demonstrate, as you said,

different

> crops take different things from the soil, resulting in an overall

> lower soil fertilty at the end of the experiment. Albrecht also

talks

> about climax crops in Nature that occur as mono-crops.

I don't understand what this is supposed to demonstrate. The

important data isn't the soil fertility, because that can be

replenished through use of manure and compost. It's *food* nutrition.

What was done to the soil other than growing things in it?

Soren

[Guest guest]

> > Albrecht, the soil scientist, reported

> > an experiment comparing soil fertility in two plots,

> > one planted with a crop rotation and the other planted

> > with the same crop year after year. The soil fertility

> > was similar at the beginning but the soil fertility was

> > lower at the end of the experiment in the plot where

> > the crop was rotated. This was to demonstrate, as you said,

> > different crops take different things from the soil,

> > resulting in an overall lower soil fertilty at the end

> > of the experiment.

> I don't understand what this is supposed to demonstrate.

> The important data isn't the soil fertility, because that

> can be replenished through use of manure and compost.

> It's *food* nutrition.

> What was done to the soil other than growing things in it?

Hi Soren:

The experiment demonstrated that growing crops in rotation takes more

from the soil than growing the same crop year after year. " The

Albrecht Papers " are four volumes. In looking through them and in

checking in their indexes, I couldn't locate the experiment I cited

to give you more details. When I come across it again, I will post it

in more detail.

Please explain more about how you replenish soil fertility with

manure and compost, both of which vary in quality.

Chi