Re: Holy Organic

[Guest guest]

At 10:55 AM 7/5/04 -0400, you wrote:

> -katja.

> (whose licenseplate, for gods' sake, is HIBRIX!!)

I thought it was " I Hugged My Scoby Today " .

Wait, no, I guess that's too many letters for a license plate. What was I

tinkin?

MFJ

If I have to be a grownup, can I at least be telekinetic too?

[Guest guest]

At 01:44 PM 7/5/04 EDT, you wrote:

> On the other hand, the guy in an adjascent town

> from me who recently dropped his organic certification in annoyance at its

> dilution who is big into pasturing, good soil, and is converting to

>horse-power

> is probably producing better quality food than most organic stuff.

See, and that's another thing. I've heard a lot from farmers about the

incredible regulation and miscellaneous stuff required to be certified

organic. That's another issue. They have to spend a whole lot of

money to satisfy the AGgies and everyone else ... money that would go a

LONG way to improve their soil fertility and brix. Many that I've talked

to don't worry any more about the certification ... they let that pass by

the wayside and invite people to their farms to see their practices etc.

and make their own decisions about whether it's " organic " enough for them.

IMHO, that's the way it should be. It shouldn't be so difficult to make

it that way. *sigh* ... guess I don't have my perfect world yet, huh?

MFJ

If I have to be a grownup, can I at least be telekinetic too?

[Guest guest]

Chris-

> > but that's all it says! i've never seen anyone claim that an organic

> tomato

> >

> > has more vitamins than a conventional one.

>

>That's a fairly regular claim, that organic food per se is more nutritious

>than conventional.

And in general, organic food is more nutritious than conventional.

It's just usually still not nearly nutritious enough.

-

[Guest guest]

> > -katja.

> > (whose licenseplate, for gods' sake, is HIBRIX!!)

>

> I thought it was " I Hugged My Scoby Today " .

>

> Wait, no, I guess that's too many letters for a license plate.

What was I

> tinkin?

Maybe that's the bumper sticker!!!

Cheers,

Tas'.

[Guest guest]

> It's just usually still not nearly nutritious enough.

>

Making and drinking vegetable juices is a good way to concentrate nutritive

values.

If the glycemic peaks don't present a problem.

Bruce

[Guest guest]

At 06:11 PM 7/5/2004, you wrote:

>See, and that's another thing. I've heard a lot from farmers about the

>incredible regulation and miscellaneous stuff required to be certified

>organic. That's another issue. They have to spend a whole lot of

>money to satisfy the AGgies and everyone else ... money that would go a

>LONG way to improve their soil fertility and brix. Many that I've talked

>to don't worry any more about the certification ... they let that pass by

>the wayside and invite people to their farms to see their practices etc.

>and make their own decisions about whether it's " organic " enough for them.

>

>IMHO, that's the way it should be. It shouldn't be so difficult to make

>it that way. *sigh* ... guess I don't have my perfect world yet, huh?

i think this must vary by region too. i don't think that the certification

is at all onerous - i have to keep paperwork, but it's minimal, and i'd

keep it anyway: breeding records, health records, records of what i put on

the soil, just general farm journal stuff. they don't care if it's written

on a napkin. i just have a crate with different file folders, and whenever

something happens, i scrawl out a note and pop it in the appropriate

folder, or we write it in the journal and we're done. we spend one day with

the inspector for the actual certification (or re-cert), which is really

fun actually and we learned a TON of stuff, and then there are occasional

unannounced visits that are just like 30 minutes or whatever. it's totally

easy. i guess if i were a conventional farmer it'd be harder to make the

transition - but again, the work is the work, not the certification. the

work is actually the *farming*.

maybe if we had cantankerous inspectors or something, i dunno. or maybe i'm

just naturally organized and someone else doesn't want to keep records at

all (though i think that's kinda foolhardy). i can't imagine that the

process is all that different anywhere else, but ya know. i can only speak

for here.

-katja

[Guest guest]

> RE: Holy Organic

If all we had available

>>were low brix food (with or without chemicals) there is

>absolutely no reason

>>to have a refractometer (as a consumer).

>

>well, but what are you going to eat until you find it, for starters,

The same things that I've *been* eating - those that look and taste the

best. (When it comes to real food, *taste* is also a good indicator of

quality/brix). That includes pastured NON organic eggs with deep orange

yolks, pastured non-organic meat, non *certified* produce from my dad's and

brother's gardens, and some certified and some non certified produce from

local farmers.

and

>for second, the chemicals will NEVER not be an issue, because they don't

>just affect your broccoli. they affect your air and your water and your

>local soil erosion and...see?

You misunderstand. Have you done much reading on the nature of high brix

plants? I said they will not be an issue with high brix produce because it

doesn't *require* toxic chemicals to keep pests off. They are

pest-resistant. Therefore if high brix ever became the norm, there would be

no more market for toxic gardening chemicals.

>

>> so sure, organics is not perfect, but it's a tool,

>> >and it's something. you can't hang your hat on something that

>doesn't yet

>> >exist,

>>

>>But they DO exist. It's a matter or *finding* them. But yes, if we don't

>>KNOW where they are or have access to them, IF indeed organic farmers are

>>moving toward high fertility soil, then that is certainly a good

>thing. But

>>there ARE high brix producers out there.

>

>well, organic producers (which i have, for the purpose of this discussion,

>limited to my experience in vermont, since i can't honestly know about

>other places) ARE moving toward higher fertility soil - it's required of

>us. if you think they're not in your area, or if you think that not enough

>of them are using brix to help, then call up your local NOFA board and ask

>to give a lecture, a workshop, to appear at the conference

>(although, local

>would be better: we already have several presenters teaching how to use

>refractometers at the big NOFA conferences).

We don't have NOFA as mentioned, we have MOFGA (Maine Organic Farmers

and Gardeners Assoc.) I am introducing my refractometer to local farmers

already and also to our local WAPF chapter, and to folks who will be

involved in a new Maine chapter up north.

i should have thought of this

>for you last week when you were asking!

What was I asking?

>>But, as said before, when I pay a premium price for organic food I

>>don't want to be paying for education that I may or may not agree with. I

>>want to be paying for the *food*.

>

>well in that case, you will have to produce all of your own food, or pay

>for the education with your own time, which may work for you, but isn't

>going to work for people in boston.

Not actually, I'll just continue buying non-certified but defacto organic

food that looks and tastes the best (and that doesn't rot so quickly - a

sign of low brix).

>

>> the organic label isn't meant to absolve people of the

>> >responsibility of food selection, it just provides a baseline. so until

>> >there's a High Brix Store, i'm glad for what we've got.

>>

>>Right, it definitely shouldn't absolve people of the

>responsibility of food

>>selection. However, I think may people are selecting organic

>because, by and

>>large, it claims to be *better* than conventional produced foods leading

>>consumers to believe they are getting a more nutritious product.

>If organic

>>advertising were honest, it would just say that it's got less

>chemicals. But

>>then consumers might think twice about paying a premium price if they knew

>>that!

>

>but that's all it says! i've never seen anyone claim that an

>organic tomato

>has more vitamins than a conventional one.

Sure it does. A quick internet search will reveal as such. There have been a

few studies that found organic produce to be higher in the vits/mins tested

as well (not sure if any were conducted in the US). I found one on the

internet yesterday. But most of the increases were statistically

insignificant. They crossed it off to low sample size. From what I've

learned on this subject, I'd say it has nothing to do with sample size,

because just about everyone I've spoken to or read about also finds that

organic produce is not higher brix than non-organic.

what i have seen is that it has

>less chemicals, and that it tastes better, and those two things i

>think are

>true, though admittedly, the latter is subjective.

Not really, not when it comes to real food. Our taste buds DO tell us which

is higher brix just like a cow's does, just like an insect's does. Maybe the

organic food where you are IS higher brix, but it's likely a rarity, as it

doesn't compare to the experiences of many others involved in agriculture.

>

>

>>Anyway, I'm not saying that what you are doing with NOFA is worthless

>>whatsoever. IF NOFA and other state or even better - private certifying

>>bodies (don't count on the Feds for this) get farmers at least

>interested in

>>soil fertility and nutritional quality, even if their methods don't work,

>>perhaps those farmers will keep digging deeper until they find a

>method that

>>does work such as Albrecht's and Reams'.

>

><--banging head on desk.

>ok. how can i possibly say this another way? organic farmers ARE using

>albrecht, and reams, and we ARE trying to raise the soil quality, and we

>are NOT using phospho-nitrates in this attempt.

It seems like you assume that all organic farmers are doing what you and

NOFA are doing. I really think you guys have a unique situation if indeed

you are following the work of Albrecht and Reams. Further, I don't know

precisely how long it takes to to achieve higher brix for each crop, but I'm

confident it doesn't take 33 years. That's how long MOFGA has been around.

And after 33 years of teaching whatever it is they're teaching, the result

is poor quality produce, by and large, from the samples I've tested thus

far. If NOFA's teaching effective soil building practices, I'd be interested

to know how long they've been teaching it and what the results are.

Do you know of ANY NOFA farmer who consitently gets " good " or " excellent "

brix readings?

>

>i think our problem is that you are saying: organic isn't a high-brix

>panacea, so why bother! it's more expensive and it's not any better!

>and i'm saying: hey! organic is trying, give it a chance. all these things

>you want, we're doing, but it's not an overnight process!

I'm not saying don't bother. I think I've already said this several times,

but I'll say it again. If_it's_working, then_I_fully_support_it. The

question is, is it working? Yes, I fully understand that it takes time - I

expressed that in my last post. It certainly doesn't take 33 years to get to

2.5 brix *certified* spinach, though!

So, I agree with you in giving it a chance IF it's actually increasing soil

fertility. I would LOVE to see some evidence of improved soil fertility as a

result of MOFGA, and now, national certification regulations. *So far* none,

IME. But again, maybe you are extremely fortunate to have an association

that actually teaches soil building methods that work.

>

>it takes years and years and years to do this work. it's hard work, and

>it's expensive, and no one appreciates it. the worst part of it is that

>when i read the stuff you're writing, i just want to cry. you're

>one of the

> " allies " , and if i can't get across to you that it's a process and we're

>trying, then how am i to educate the rest of the world?

There's nothing to get across. I already agreed more than once that it's a

process, and as long as it WORKS, I fully support it. Not only that, but I

already expressed my appreciation for the work that you do, and have

expressed my appreciation to local organic farmers for the work that they

do. So there is really no need to cry :-)

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

> RE: Holy Organic

>

>>Have you read the Albrecht papers and are you familiar with *his*

>methods of

>>improving soil fertility? Which, as I mentioned, I understand to be

>>unconventional even to organic farmers?

>

>ok. albrecht. albrechtalbrechtalbrecht oh my god, albrecht! yes,

>he's super

>nifty. i only just got his papers in the last weeks, but i'm reading

>nothing new there. everything he has said i've already been taught by NOFA

>people. most of NOFA is staffed by WAPF people and by biodynamic people,

>and most of the small farmers are moving towards WAPF or are there

>already.

>you can't confuse hain group and organic argibiz with small diversified

>organic farmers - it's just not the same.

I'm not confusing them, but again, I think NOFA sounds like a rarity if it's

so densely populated with WAPers and are teaching Albrecht's work.

>

>and now i'm probably sounding as bad with " NOFA " as you are with

> " albrecht " , but my point is, don't demonize us!

Firstly, I haven't *deomonized* anyone. I'm just stating the facts about the

quality of produce and how organic is not a *guarantee* of quality. I

realize the reality of poor quality certified produce is painful, especially

to a hard working organic farmer. But stating the state of affairs, is by no

means an attack.

Secondly, on a board committed to Price's teachings, one would expect us to

discuss albrechtalbrechtalbrechtalbrechtalbrecht since WAP apparently was

greatly influenced by Albrecht's work, so much so, that he published an

address given by Albrecht(Food is Fabricated Soil Fertility) as chapter 23

in NAPD. Albrecht is the ONLY person other than Price to have written a

chapter of NAPD and Price makes it clear that Albrecht's contribution to

human " rehabilitation " is great.

Besides, since Chi hasn't been around for a while someone needs to be the

Albrecht gnat, since we seem to so often forget we are degenerating because

our *soil* is degenerating. We rarely ever discuss that here, yet it's at

the root of our mass degeneration as a nation!

but just...please

>understand that in this search for the golden brix (hee!), well, we're all

>in it together. some of us (one farm in particular, who's been at

>it for 25

>years) are way up there on the scale, and others are just starting

>out,

What kind of readings are they getting? Can you give any specifics? You've

made a couple of vague references to this, but I'm curious as to what level

readings you're talking about.

And I don't want to sound like a broken record, but I KNOW we're in this

together - that's what I said in my first post on this subject! IF organic

farmers are indeed effectively building high fertility soil, even though it

may take years, then I applaud them and fully support them. But I've not yet

SEEN such results, maybe you guys have and maybe MOFGA has something to

learn from NOFA. Or maybe I haven't tested enough different farms yet,

although my experiences with brix readings so far mirror those of many folks

in agriculture who've taken far more extensive measurements than myself.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

At 10:01 AM 7/6/2004, you wrote:

>There's nothing to get across. I already agreed more than once that it's a

>process, and as long as it WORKS, I fully support it. Not only that, but I

>already expressed my appreciation for the work that you do, and have

>expressed my appreciation to local organic farmers for the work that they

>do. So there is really no need to cry :-)

suze -

you're right, you have. and i've been trying to figure out why i still

don't feel the love! and i figured it out! it's because you keep saying

stuff like " well, sure, IF it's working " ...(not a direct quote)...like you

don't believe me. believe me! i'm working hard! and i've only been making

claims for NOFA, cause i just don't know anything about the other

organizations (which although i said a few times already, i felt i should

restate for clarity). maybe vermont will be this little high-brix sanctuary...

i will try to take some time to type out people's brix charts for you - i

know you're dying to see them but i just haven't had the time to type them

all out.

i just wish that instead of [everyone who's been posting] being angry that

organic food is poison or that it's lying to you or whatever other claims

have been made (not neccessarily by suze), that people would be glad that

there's already an organization in place where people can learn about this

stuff, and if the local one to you isn't teaching it, then you can start.

ours is, so maybe we're just lucky. that and, at the very least, at the

really very least, we've taken the first step with getting the chemicals

out, and getting the word out that there's something besides monsanto.

-katja

[Guest guest]

>i just wish that instead of [everyone who's been posting] being angry that

>organic food is poison or that it's lying to you or whatever other claims

>have been made (not neccessarily by suze), that people would be glad that

>there's already an organization in place where people can learn about this

>stuff, and if the local one to you isn't teaching it, then you can start.

>ours is, so maybe we're just lucky. that and, at the very least, at the

>really very least, we've taken the first step with getting the chemicals

>out, and getting the word out that there's something besides monsanto.

>

>-katja

Well, I'm jumping in late, but for what it is worth ... Katja

is actually DOING farming and most of the others are THEORIZING

about farming. Personally I think the " organic " label is a good

start ... and a lot of organic farmers are going further (into

biodynamic stuff, really grass fed beef etc.). I do buy stuff

where I know the farmer ... my beef isn't " organic " because it's

raised as a sideline by folks who just have raised cows for a long

time and don't really think about " organic " much. Buy my local

produce farmer is registered " organic " and I appreciate that he

does support that movements.

As for " chemicals " ... that gets weird sometimes too. " Natural "

isn't always " better " . Our " natural " well water has arsenic

in it ... not good at all! Our soil likes to have " lime " added

which really is a chemical when you come right down to it. Any time

you start using labels, you get inaccuracies ... but the labels

are still useful. And anyone who is working on making a good,

sustainable, biodynamic farm has my vote ... any methods that

work (including labelling stuff organic) are good!

-- Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

> RE: Holy Organic

>

>

>At 10:01 AM 7/6/2004, you wrote:

>

>>There's nothing to get across. I already agreed more than once that it's a

>>process, and as long as it WORKS, I fully support it. Not only that, but I

>>already expressed my appreciation for the work that you do, and have

>>expressed my appreciation to local organic farmers for the work that they

>>do. So there is really no need to cry :-)

>

>

>suze -

>you're right, you have. and i've been trying to figure out why i still

>don't feel the love!

Awwww...you know i love you :-)

and i figured it out! it's because you keep saying

>stuff like " well, sure, IF it's working " ...(not a direct quote)...like you

>don't believe me. believe me!

It's not that i don't believe what you are saying about NOFA. I do. But I'm

not talking about exceptions to the rule (which I suspect NOFA is), I'm

talking about the rule. And from what I'm getting from folks in the ag biz

who are into soil fertility and brix, organic is absolutely no guarantee of

nutritional quality (which, so far, my own readings, have borne out).

i'm working hard! and i've only been making

>claims for NOFA, cause i just don't know anything about the other

>organizations (which although i said a few times already, i felt i should

>restate for clarity). maybe vermont will be this little high-brix

>sanctuary...

It's possible.

>

>i will try to take some time to type out people's brix charts for you - i

>know you're dying to see them but i just haven't had the time to type them

>all out.

Oh, I wouldn't ask you to type out a bunch of charts! I know you are far too

busy for that. I just wanted a few sample readings of NOFA farms that are

getting consistently good or excellent brix readings. Just to get an idea of

what they are achieving under NOFA's guidance.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 7/6/04 4:37:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

heidis@... writes:

> As for " chemicals " ... that gets weird sometimes too. " Natural "

> isn't always " better " . Our " natural " well water has arsenic

> in it ... not good at all!

And " natural " almond flavor extracted from peach pits has cyanide in it,

iirc, unlike the chemically identical " artificial " flavor.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> RE: Holy Organic

>

>Well, I'm jumping in late, but for what it is worth ... Katja

>is actually DOING farming and most of the others are THEORIZING

>about farming.

It is absolutely true that katja is DOING farming, and I applaud her for

what she is doing, sincerely. She does far more than I do to help educate

her community on these issues, I must say.

However, I want to point out that the information I've posted is mostly from

other farmers/gardeners who are DOING farming and gardening, as well. I

think some of the other info from non-farming list members thus far is also

from experienced farmers and gardeners. So it's not like this is a battle

between theory and practice. I don't know if *Albrecht* was a farmer, but he

was a brilliant soil scientist (some DOING is involved there) who observed

phenomenon and wrote about it and his theory has proven true. So even if

*he* wasn't a farmer, it makes his theory no less true than if he were. The

same goes for Reams, who, I believe, WAS a gardener, although I'm not

certain. And many of his soil/brix/health theories have also been proven.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

>

[Guest guest]

>However, I want to point out that the information I've posted is mostly from

>other farmers/gardeners who are DOING farming and gardening, as well. I

>think some of the other info from non-farming list members thus far is also

>from experienced farmers and gardeners. So it's not like this is a battle

>between theory and practice. I don't know if *Albrecht* was a farmer, but he

>was a brilliant soil scientist (some DOING is involved there) who observed

>phenomenon and wrote about it and his theory has proven true. So even if

>*he* wasn't a farmer, it makes his theory no less true than if he were. The

>same goes for Reams, who, I believe, WAS a gardener, although I'm not

>certain. And many of his soil/brix/health theories have also been proven.

>

>

>Suze Fisher

I'm not arguing that ... I don't think many " organic " farmers would.

But on the larger issues of having " organizations " and having an

" organic " label ... part of that is economic and marketing. Trying to

make a living off a farm (vs. raising a few chickens for eggs) involves

a lot more than JUST raising a quality product. The " organic " label

costs some money ... and it makes it easier to market your product.

The average consumer doesn't have a brix meter. Our local

farmer sells a lot to restaurant chains ... they want to tell their

customers that they serve " organic " . Yeah, it COULD be low

quality organic (though IMO it is pretty good stuff, it could be

better but everyone is still learning) but again, a lot of it is about

marketing and about making ends meet so he CAN provide

decent produce.

In terms of " selling " produce in general, there are sooo many

issues. I tend to think that it is hard in general to " market " something

in a way that ensures a quality product. For instance ... I have my chickens

running around, eating bugs. That means I have " live " manure around.

If a kid got sick from salmonella, I'd be immediately suspect ... but since

I don't sell vegies I don't have to worry about it. Odwalla use manure

on their apple trees, some got into some apple juice, a few people

got sick and now they have to pastuerize everything. But if I use

manure on MY apple trees and eat non-pastuerized apple juice, I'm

unlikely to get sick (or my family) because we've been exposed to

said manure and are likely immune to whatever bacteria it harbors.

As for soil quality ... really, it's good to have high quality soil. But

it's also true that much of the world never has had really high quality

soil, even before modern agriculture. Somehow people (and cattle)

did ok, at least before modern times. Price's skull study showed

that all the skulls were in good shape (from a dental standpoint).

But the tribes went downhill really fast as soon as a trading post

opened ... surely their local soil quality didn't self-destruct in 20

years, and surely they were not eating JUST trading post goods.

And a lot depends on the crop ... our chicken enriched soil

is growing GREAT collard greens right now. But the beans don't

like that soil at all. The blackberries don't like fertilizer much

at all, but they like the usual glacier-scrubbed soil that

came with this land.

-- Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

At 05:38 PM 7/6/2004, you wrote:

> >suze -

> >you're right, you have. and i've been trying to figure out why i still

> >don't feel the love!

>

>Awwww...you know i love you :-)

heehee! fanks suze!!

with the love and um, a good night's sleep!, i feel much better now!

> and i figured it out! it's because you keep saying

> >stuff like " well, sure, IF it's working " ...(not a direct quote)...like you

> >don't believe me. believe me!

>

>It's not that i don't believe what you are saying about NOFA. I do. But I'm

>not talking about exceptions to the rule (which I suspect NOFA is), I'm

>talking about the rule. And from what I'm getting from folks in the ag biz

>who are into soil fertility and brix, organic is absolutely no guarantee of

>nutritional quality (which, so far, my own readings, have borne out).

i don't know. i just have no experience outside of vermont yet. i truly

hope that we aren't an exception!!

i'm afk for the rest of the week - i took some vacation time to work on

getting stuff ready for our open house/open farm whatever on july

25th...hopefully by next week i'll also have the website all shiney and

polished (at the moment it's just a one-page place holder) - i'm just

waiting for the pictures to come back!

-katja

[Guest guest]

> RE: Holy Organic

>

>

>

>>However, I want to point out that the information I've posted is

>mostly from

>>other farmers/gardeners who are DOING farming and gardening, as well. I

>>think some of the other info from non-farming list members thus

>far is also

>>from experienced farmers and gardeners. So it's not like this is a battle

>>between theory and practice. I don't know if *Albrecht* was a

>farmer, but he

>>was a brilliant soil scientist (some DOING is involved there) who observed

>>phenomenon and wrote about it and his theory has proven true. So even if

>>*he* wasn't a farmer, it makes his theory no less true than if he

>were. The

>>same goes for Reams, who, I believe, WAS a gardener, although I'm not

>>certain. And many of his soil/brix/health theories have also been proven.

>>

>>

>>Suze Fisher

>

>I'm not arguing that ... I don't think many " organic " farmers would.

>But on the larger issues of having " organizations " and having an

> " organic " label ... part of that is economic and marketing. Trying to

>make a living off a farm (vs. raising a few chickens for eggs) involves

>a lot more than JUST raising a quality product. The " organic " label

>costs some money ... and it makes it easier to market your product.

>The average consumer doesn't have a brix meter.

The problem is, whether the average consumer had a brix meter or not, it

still wouldn't increase the nutritional value of organic food. What it

probably WOULD do, however, is make the average consumer aware that the

organic label is no guarantee of nutritional quality. Maybe THEN, if

consumers demanded higher nutritional products, organic organizatoins as a

whole, might change their certification regulations to *require* enhancement

of nutritional quality in order to be certified.

>

>As for soil quality ... really, it's good to have high quality soil. But

>it's also true that much of the world never has had really high quality

>soil, even before modern agriculture. Somehow people (and cattle)

>did ok, at least before modern times.

What do you mean by " did OK " ? They degenerated sooner than WAP's primitives?

Or...?

Price's skull study showed

>that all the skulls were in good shape (from a dental standpoint).

>But the tribes went downhill really fast as soon as a trading post

>opened ... surely their local soil quality didn't self-destruct in 20

>years, and surely they were not eating JUST trading post goods.

This reminds me, I think you've posted before about native american tribes'

health going down with the onset of corn cultivation and how that's a result

of the corn displacing more nutrient dense foods. I read somewhere recently

(I think Albrecht, but am not sure) that there was a decline in soil

fertility that corresponded with the use of corn in the native american

diet, and he attributed the decline (as evidenced by skeletons) to declining

soil fertility! I have no idea what would've happened had they eaten high

brix corn rather than that grown on low fertility soil, but it's an

interesting thought...

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

>The problem is, whether the average consumer had a brix meter or not, it

>still wouldn't increase the nutritional value of organic food. What it

>probably WOULD do, however, is make the average consumer aware that the

>organic label is no guarantee of nutritional quality. Maybe THEN, if

>consumers demanded higher nutritional products, organic organizatoins as a

>whole, might change their certification regulations to *require* enhancement

>of nutritional quality in order to be certified.

In an ideal world, that would be wonderful! But things just don't change

overnight ... as idealistic as I may be about some things, to actually

change the world you have to do it in steps. The " health food "

movement started in the 70's, and is only now really going mainstream.

The fact that some of the infrastructure started then, and some of

the food stores, has laid the groundwork for stores like Whole Foods,

which are now going a few steps further than the sprouts and tofu

beginnings and are offering better meats and fish.

If you have organizations and an infrastructure for " organic, " then

sooner or later those organizations can start adding additional

info ... like about nutrient quality, grass fed, pastured, GMO status,

how far it was shipped (for the energy conscious), lack of irradiation and even

allergy info. There are LOTS of issues about foods, of which

pesticide/antibiotic use

is just the first. So I for one applaud Katja's joining HER local organization

....

if more folks like her join, then eventually the organization will get

smarter.

> >As for soil quality ... really, it's good to have high quality soil. But

>>it's also true that much of the world never has had really high quality

>>soil, even before modern agriculture. Somehow people (and cattle)

>>did ok, at least before modern times.

>

>What do you mean by " did OK " ? They degenerated sooner than WAP's primitives?

>Or...?

I mean that most primatives (on good or bad soil) did better than most

folks in the city (on good or bad soil). Living on the foods your body

is designed for, it will work better than if it is living off foods it

isn't designed for. Price looked at hundreds of skulls, and all of

them were in pretty good shape tooth-wise. I doubt all of them got

an ideal diet from a soil fertility point of view.

>This reminds me, I think you've posted before about native american tribes'

>health going down with the onset of corn cultivation and how that's a result

>of the corn displacing more nutrient dense foods. I read somewhere recently

>(I think Albrecht, but am not sure) that there was a decline in soil

>fertility that corresponded with the use of corn in the native american

>diet, and he attributed the decline (as evidenced by skeletons) to declining

>soil fertility! I have no idea what would've happened had they eaten high

>brix corn rather than that grown on low fertility soil, but it's an

>interesting thought...

The stuff I've read about corn and the Indians had to do with arthritis,

which (IMO) probably isn't so much about nutrients as it is about lectins

and allergy issues. Wheat and corn are both pretty hard on the joints ...

rice doesn't seem to have so many issues (though it isn't high in nutrients

either). But I'd guess he is saying that growing corn *caused* the low

soil fertility? A diet high in corn is also pretty low in protein though,

unless maybe there are lots of beans with it, and a corn/bean diet would

still need other foods to supplement it even if they were grown in

good soil, I think.

-- Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 7/7/04 9:37:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

heidis@... writes:

> I mean that most primatives (on good or bad soil) did better than most

> folks in the city (on good or bad soil). Living on the foods your body

> is designed for, it will work better than if it is living off foods it

> isn't designed for. Price looked at hundreds of skulls, and all of

> them were in pretty good shape tooth-wise. I doubt all of them got

> an ideal diet from a soil fertility point of view.

From what I recall, and I read NAPD once nearly two years ago, the skulls he

looked for were among hunter-gatherers. He found the pre-Columbian

hunter-gatherers to have MUCH better skeletal structure and thicker skulls than

post-Columbian hunter-gatherers. That could represent food changes, or

deteriorating

soils.

But, in any case, wouldn't hunter-gatherers be much less likely to have soil

issues than agriculturists of any form?

Further, Price noted that one of the things all his groups had in common was

ways of maintaining soil. He noted the difference in health between Gaelics

that did and did not have the smoked thatch roof as fertilizer. Didn't he also

grow foods in sample soils from places and compare them to foods in American

soil?

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 7/8/04 1:48:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

s.fisher22@... writes:

> >But, in any case, wouldn't hunter-gatherers be much less likely to

> >have soil

> >issues than agriculturists of any form?

>

> I don't see why. You can develop good soil in agriculture and

> hunter/gatherers could've spent time hunting/gathering on poor soil,

> although I suspect they probably had a way to identify high quality plants

> just as animals do. So in times of abundance, they probably had a high

> quality diet.

Because nature has ways of maintaining soil fertility. Microbe populations

change to adjust to changing conditions, and plants that don't do well in a

given soil are quickly eaten by insects or crowded out by plants that do do well

in that soil. Furthermore, erosion is extremely limited compared to

agriculture, etc, etc.

So, since most agricultural practices destroy soil fertility (though, if done

with the appropriate technology and recognition that nature's natural

maintenance system must be imitated, doesn't necessarily have to), one would

expect

that hunter-gatherer societies would naturally tend to live on better soil than

agriculturalists, especially agriculturalists that didn't have the practices

Price observed of maintaining soil fertility.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> RE: Holy Organic

>

>

>

>

>>The problem is, whether the average consumer had a brix meter or not, it

>>still wouldn't increase the nutritional value of organic food. What it

>>probably WOULD do, however, is make the average consumer aware that the

>>organic label is no guarantee of nutritional quality. Maybe THEN, if

>>consumers demanded higher nutritional products, organic organizatoins as a

>>whole, might change their certification regulations to *require*

>enhancement

>>of nutritional quality in order to be certified.

>

>In an ideal world, that would be wonderful! But things just don't change

>overnight ... as idealistic as I may be about some things, to actually

>change the world you have to do it in steps. The " health food "

>movement started in the 70's, and is only now really going mainstream.

>The fact that some of the infrastructure started then, and some of

>the food stores, has laid the groundwork for stores like Whole Foods,

>which are now going a few steps further than the sprouts and tofu

>beginnings and are offering better meats and fish.

I realize these things take time, as I've mentioned in previous posts. But

the question is not HOW LONG will it take the organic movement to " get

there " but is_it_actually_moving_in_that_direction in any meaningful way? It

seems like *NOFA* is, and maybe Oregon Tilth is, but it doesn't seem like

the rest of the country is. As I asked in a previous post, does it really

take 33 years to get 2.5 brix certified organic spinach???? At that rate

many generations willl be long dead before we have access to any decent

food.

In any case, while you guys are talking about the " organic movement " which

the feds now regulate, (and in no way, shape or form, does the regulating

body seem to give a hoot about nutritional quality), there are people

already building and maintaing fertile soil and growing excellent crops on

that soil. It would be great if the organic movement would try to emulate

farmers and gardeners who actually grow high nutrition crops. I do realize

that they need to be educated about HOW to do this. I'm not sure why the

" how to " materials are not in wide use among organic farmers already...?

>> >As for soil quality ... really, it's good to have high quality soil. But

>>>it's also true that much of the world never has had really high quality

>>>soil, even before modern agriculture. Somehow people (and cattle)

>>>did ok, at least before modern times.

>>

>>What do you mean by " did OK " ? They degenerated sooner than WAP's

>primitives?

>>Or...?

>

>I mean that most primatives (on good or bad soil) did better than most

>folks in the city (on good or bad soil). Living on the foods your body

>is designed for, it will work better than if it is living off foods it

>isn't designed for.

This goes back to the point I've made a few times already - it's both

*quality* AND *composition*that are important. Just compostion alone won't

bring radiant health, and neither will great quality, if it's the wrong food

for YOU.

Price looked at hundreds of skulls, and all of

>them were in pretty good shape tooth-wise. I doubt all of them got

>an ideal diet from a soil fertility point of view.

It *requires* healthy soil to produce healthy bodies. That is really the

bottom line as Albrecht wrote. Price seemed to believe the same thing. I

don't see how you think any living creature can be healthy without a high

quality diet (ergo, grown/raised on high fertility soil). Sure there are

plenty of shades of gray in between, but that doesn't detract from the fact

that healthy soil = healthy humans and unhealthy soil = unhealthy humans. I

think you seem to be talking about a gray area that doesn't quite reach

" high " fertility soil/diet, but somewhere close to it? Really, otherwise

these folks wouldn't have healthy bodies (if indeed they were healthy).

>

>

>>This reminds me, I think you've posted before about native

>american tribes'

>>health going down with the onset of corn cultivation and how

>that's a result

>>of the corn displacing more nutrient dense foods. I read

>somewhere recently

>>(I think Albrecht, but am not sure) that there was a decline in soil

>>fertility that corresponded with the use of corn in the native american

>>diet, and he attributed the decline (as evidenced by skeletons)

>to declining

>>soil fertility! I have no idea what would've happened had they eaten high

>>brix corn rather than that grown on low fertility soil, but it's an

>>interesting thought...

>

>The stuff I've read about corn and the Indians had to do with arthritis,

>which (IMO) probably isn't so much about nutrients as it is about lectins

>and allergy issues. Wheat and corn are both pretty hard on the joints ...

>rice doesn't seem to have so many issues (though it isn't high in nutrients

>either). But I'd guess he is saying that growing corn *caused* the low

>soil fertility?

No, the other way around. I'm not arguing that corn and soy are good as

staples in anyone's diet, but it's worth noting that plants grown on high

fertility soil have a lot less anti-nutrients than those grown on poor

soils. I don't know if that includes lectins or not, though.

A diet high in corn is also pretty low in protein though,

>unless maybe there are lots of beans with it, and a corn/bean diet would

>still need other foods to supplement it even if they were grown in

>good soil, I think.

I think Albrecht wrote that high fertility soil produces higher protein

plants, FWIW. (Or it might have been Arden Andersen. Pretty sure it was

albrecht.)

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

> Re: Holy Organic

>

>

>In a message dated 7/7/04 9:37:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

>heidis@... writes:

>

>

>> I mean that most primatives (on good or bad soil) did better than most

>> folks in the city (on good or bad soil). Living on the foods your body

>> is designed for, it will work better than if it is living off foods it

>> isn't designed for. Price looked at hundreds of skulls, and all of

>> them were in pretty good shape tooth-wise. I doubt all of them got

>> an ideal diet from a soil fertility point of view.

>

>From what I recall, and I read NAPD once nearly two years ago, the

>skulls he

>looked for were among hunter-gatherers. He found the pre-Columbian

>hunter-gatherers to have MUCH better skeletal structure and

>thicker skulls than

>post-Columbian hunter-gatherers. That could represent food

>changes, or deteriorating

>soils.

Or both!

>

>But, in any case, wouldn't hunter-gatherers be much less likely to

>have soil

>issues than agriculturists of any form?

I don't see why. You can develop good soil in agriculture and

hunter/gatherers could've spent time hunting/gathering on poor soil,

although I suspect they probably had a way to identify high quality plants

just as animals do. So in times of abundance, they probably had a high

quality diet.

>

>Further, Price noted that one of the things all his groups had in

>common was

>ways of maintaining soil. He noted the difference in health

>between Gaelics

>that did and did not have the smoked thatch roof as fertilizer.

>Didn't he also

>grow foods in sample soils from places and compare them to foods

>in American

>soil?

I don't remember. But I can't imagine that Price's groups DIDN'T have

fertile soil. They MUST have had good soil in order to achieve the vibrant

health they enjoyed.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 7/8/04 9:00:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

heidis@... writes:

> " Healthy soil " is always relative though ... the Gaelic

> soil is considered very poor (as is the climate) but healthy people

> lived there in Price's time (mainly because they ate a lot of seafood).

And because of the smoked thatch rooves, apparently. The ones who didn't

fertilize their crops with them all had tuberculosis.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>Price looked at hundreds of skulls, and all of

>>them were in pretty good shape tooth-wise. I doubt all of them got

>>an ideal diet from a soil fertility point of view.

>

>It *requires* healthy soil to produce healthy bodies. That is really the

>bottom line as Albrecht wrote. Price seemed to believe the same thing. I

>don't see how you think any living creature can be healthy without a high

>quality diet (ergo, grown/raised on high fertility soil). Sure there are

>plenty of shades of gray in between, but that doesn't detract from the fact

>that healthy soil = healthy humans and unhealthy soil = unhealthy humans. I

>think you seem to be talking about a gray area that doesn't quite reach

> " high " fertility soil/diet, but somewhere close to it? Really, otherwise

>these folks wouldn't have healthy bodies (if indeed they were healthy).

Mostly when it comes to farming currently, it IS a grey area ... I mean,

when I grow vegies I'm sure it is less that *ideally* fertile, but if the

plant grows and seems reasonable healthy, it is probably reasonably

healthy for me (if the soil was really really bad the plant would die).

It might be lacking in some nutrient or another (and no plant has ALL

the nutrients). " Healthy soil " is always relative though ... the Gaelic

soil is considered very poor (as is the climate) but healthy people

lived there in Price's time (mainly because they ate a lot of seafood).

Our soil is very poor (though the chickens help a lot!) but it grows

good berries.

But, well, I think I got kind of sidetracked so let me reshape my original

" thesis statement " (as my English teacher would call it). I was responding to

the statement " Cows fed low quality hay are as bad as humans on SAD "

(paraphrasing a little). It's the " as bad as " part that I was responding to,

because

the analogy isn't IMO quite accurate. There is a Maslow's triangle of sorts to

diet. For humans:

HA: Species-appropriate food grown on great soil (Fruit, vegies, meat,

high-brix, no pesticides etc.).

HB: Species-appropriate food grown on less than great soil., organic.

HC: Whole food diet, but not quite species-appropriate (Whole grains,

fruit, vegies, meat), from organic sources.

HD: Whole food diet, from the supermarket.

HF: SAD (high in fructose, white flour, soy oil etc.).

The bovine equivalent would be:

BA: Species appropriate food grown on great soil. (Free range, grass)

BB: Species appropriate food grown on less than great soil. (Hay and grass)

BC: Good food, not quite species appropriate (For a cow, this

means they have grain added).

BD: Packaged cow food, mostly grass based.

BF: Corn-fed beef.

So, much of the beef many of us get is " BB, " which is a far

cry better than " BF " . To say that " BB " is as bad as " HF " doesn't

make sense ... the WORST hay and grass diet for a cow is still

better than a full-corn diet, just as the worst fruit/vegie/meat

diet is still better than a fructose/white flour diet.

If in fact BB is truly " as bad as " HF, then HB is " as bad as " HF,

and I may as well go back to eating Twinkies and Coke, because

the " HA " and " BA " foods are next to impossible to gaurantee

at this point (and throughout most of history).

-- Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

> RE: Holy Organic

>

>

>

>>Price looked at hundreds of skulls, and all of

>>>them were in pretty good shape tooth-wise. I doubt all of them got

>>>an ideal diet from a soil fertility point of view.

>>

>>It *requires* healthy soil to produce healthy bodies. That is really the

>>bottom line as Albrecht wrote. Price seemed to believe the same thing. I

>>don't see how you think any living creature can be healthy without a high

>>quality diet (ergo, grown/raised on high fertility soil). Sure there are

>>plenty of shades of gray in between, but that doesn't detract

>from the fact

>>that healthy soil = healthy humans and unhealthy soil = unhealthy

>humans. I

>>think you seem to be talking about a gray area that doesn't quite reach

>> " high " fertility soil/diet, but somewhere close to it? Really, otherwise

>>these folks wouldn't have healthy bodies (if indeed they were healthy).

>

>Mostly when it comes to farming currently, it IS a grey area ... I mean,

>when I grow vegies I'm sure it is less that *ideally* fertile, but if the

>plant grows and seems reasonable healthy, it is probably reasonably

>healthy for me (if the soil was really really bad the plant would die).

>It might be lacking in some nutrient or another (and no plant has ALL

>the nutrients).

IIRC, according to Reams, plants grown on high fertlity soil tend to have

something like 84 minerals, I think it was. Conventional testing only covers

a handful. No one expects plants to have such a broad spectrum of nutrients

because most people aren't used to high brix plants.

" Healthy soil " is always relative though ... the Gaelic

>soil is considered very poor (as is the climate) but healthy people

>lived there in Price's time (mainly because they ate a lot of seafood).

But also, as mentioned, because the prepared the soil just right with

the ash from the straw huts!

>

>But, well, I think I got kind of sidetracked so let me reshape my original

> " thesis statement " (as my English teacher would call it). I was

>responding to

>the statement " Cows fed low quality hay are as bad as humans on SAD "

>(paraphrasing a little). It's the " as bad as " part that I was

>responding to, because

>the analogy isn't IMO quite accurate. There is a Maslow's triangle

>of sorts to

>diet. For humans:

>

>HA: Species-appropriate food grown on great soil (Fruit, vegies, meat,

> high-brix, no pesticides etc.).

>

>HB: Species-appropriate food grown on less than great soil., organic.

>

>HC: Whole food diet, but not quite species-appropriate (Whole grains,

> fruit, vegies, meat), from organic sources.

>

>HD: Whole food diet, from the supermarket.

>

>HF: SAD (high in fructose, white flour, soy oil etc.).

>

>The bovine equivalent would be:

>

>BA: Species appropriate food grown on great soil. (Free range, grass)

>

>BB: Species appropriate food grown on less than great soil. (Hay and grass)

>

>BC: Good food, not quite species appropriate (For a cow, this

> means they have grain added).

>

>BD: Packaged cow food, mostly grass based.

>

>BF: Corn-fed beef.

>

>So, much of the beef many of us get is " BB, " which is a far

>cry better than " BF " . To say that " BB " is as bad as " HF " doesn't

>make sense ... the WORST hay and grass diet for a cow is still

>better than a full-corn diet, just as the worst fruit/vegie/meat

>diet is still better than a fructose/white flour diet.

I don't disagree with your breakdown. But I was making the point that the

cow on low brix grass and the SAD dieter are both on low nutrient diets.

Which is true. And they will both suffer health consequences as a result.

When you break it down into all the different *types* of low nutrient diets

that you've outlined (the gray areas) I agree that that the

species-appropriate low quality diets are MORE comparable. But still, in a

broader sense, all the low nutrient diets will result in negative health

effects ultimately.

>

>If in fact BB is truly " as bad as " HF, then HB is " as bad as " HF,

>and I may as well go back to eating Twinkies and Coke, because

>the " HA " and " BA " foods are next to impossible to gaurantee

>at this point (and throughout most of history).

I doubt it. I bet the HA and BA were more the norm before the agricultural

revolution. Furthermore there's absolutely no reason you can't guarantee

that you won't get HA foods, especially if you have a garden and/or raise

your own meat. People ARE growing/raising food this way. I get a sense that

several folks have expressed that it's just not doable, or too rare to find

to even bother with eating a high quality diet. But I just don't think

that's true.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

>

[Guest guest]

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

> Re: Holy Organic

>

>

>In a message dated 7/8/04 1:48:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

>s.fisher22@... writes:

>

>

>> >But, in any case, wouldn't hunter-gatherers be much less likely to

>> >have soil

>> >issues than agriculturists of any form?

>>

>> I don't see why. You can develop good soil in agriculture and

>> hunter/gatherers could've spent time hunting/gathering on poor soil,

>> although I suspect they probably had a way to identify high

>quality plants

>> just as animals do. So in times of abundance, they probably had a high

>> quality diet.

>

>Because nature has ways of maintaining soil fertility.

Right. But that doesn't mean every acre on the planet is or was fertile

soil. There are deserts and other areas of non-fertile soil.

Microbe

>populations

>change to adjust to changing conditions, and plants that don't do

>well in a

>given soil are quickly eaten by insects or crowded out by plants

>that do do well

>in that soil. Furthermore, erosion is extremely limited compared to

>agriculture, etc, etc.

>

>So, since most agricultural practices destroy soil fertility

>(though, if done

>with the appropriate technology and recognition that nature's natural

>maintenance system must be imitated, doesn't necessarily have to),

>one would expect

>that hunter-gatherer societies would naturally tend to live on

>better soil than

>agriculturalists, especially agriculturalists that didn't have the

>practices

>Price observed of maintaining soil fertility.

Right, but my point was it isn't necessarily so as Price's groups proved. He

thought the Dinkas were the healthiest group and their diet was partly

grains, ergo, agriculture. But even if they weren't, his healthy groups

included both agriculturists and hunter/gatherers. That's why I said I don't

see why hunter/gatherer's *necessarily* have an advantage. Really, Price's

groups are the best proof of that.

>