Re: Holy Organic

[Guest guest]

>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.

Many cattle are grown on marginal land, and a lot of them

have always lived that way (mountain goats come to mind, and reindeer).

I suppose if they were kept in some small area and always fed really

bad grass, their health would suffer. But it really isn't the same ...

when you are talking about farming *crops* ... most of the crops

we grow require a lot of minerals etc. just to grow. Esp. the grain

crops, which like nice rich alluvial soils. But cattle DO eat a lot

of low nutrient grass, and make up the difference by eating

minerals separately ... that's one of the reasons cattle have

been so useful to humans, they can eat grass (which seems to

do ok just about anywhere) and get their minerals as they can.

Cattle thrive where you can't grow anything else. Part of it might

be that they eat such a huge quantity of grass that they can take the

nutrients out of it as needed?

As for if the cattle are really in poor health or not ... I can't tell

by looking at them. They SEEM healthy enough in terms of nice

coat, no diarrhea, healthy calves, strong bones.

>>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.

I don't think that's true either ... Europe in particular was having

all kinds of problems with farm productivity, but were " saved " when

nitrogen fertilizers were introduced. Farming in general caused humans

to start having ill health ... partly because farming depletes the soil, but

basically the hunter-gatherer lifestyle is easier on the land. For instance,

the rainforests aren't on particularly rich soil. If you clearcut a rainforest

and plant crops, the crops start dying after a few years. But a hunter/gatherer

can live quite nicely off rainforest fruits and animals. The same is true for

the land around here ... it supported the Indians well enough (they had nice

round faces and were purported to be healthy before the white folk came)

but it is lousy for farming (glaciers took away most of the topsoil).

So that is where I have a problem with the whole " healthy soil " thing. On our

land, the forest is pretty much as it always was. It isn't great soil. But the

trees

and deer live off it well enough. I don't know if they are high or low brix

trees,

but the deer and rabbits seem to multiply and they don't act sickly, and they

are living pretty much as they have for the last thousand years or so. The

Indians

lived off the deer and rabbits, and salmon, and they seem to have been healthy

according to accounts and pictures.

Now if you are talking farmland, that is a whole different thing. Farmland is

artificial to begin with. You are plowing up the soil every year, which isn't

natural. On modern farms, you are also using agents that kill the bugs and

bacteria, and plowing it so most of the good stuff washes into the streams.

So it gets depleted really fast. Then you are planting plants that mostly don't

survive in the wild. Then you are planting them without the supporting wildlife

(birds to eat the bugs, ruminants to cut the grass and fertilize). An ideal,

biodynamic

farm cuts out some of the problems with farming, but it is never as good as

the hunter-gatherer system or some of the " permaculture " systems the Indians

seem to have used (which, however, do not allow for high population densities).

So I would bet that as soon as humans began farming, the soils started to be

depleted (as you mentioned about the Indians farming corn). AND they were

eating a non-species-appropriate diet. AND the grain crops they usually farmed

are basically a lot less nutritious than the meat foods they replaced. AND the

crops they bred were pretty much artificial (as are the hybrid and GMO crops

now). All of which contributed to them losing a foot or so of height, way

back at the beginning of the Neolithic.

As for " can a decent diet be had today " etc. ... yeah, we need a new algorithm.

I'm experimenting myself. Part of the answer, I think, is in the permaculture

arena ... Now raspberries and blackberries pretty much need only to be staked

and the bigger weeds removed, they take care of themselves. Add some chickens

for fertilizer. And ruminants to keep the grass short. And some nut trees ...

-- Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 7/9/04 10:04:46 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jc137@...

writes:

> WHAT!!!!!?????!!!!!! You're not getting your minimum daily requirement of

> Twinkies and Coke? Heidi, not only will you ruin your health with this

> nonsense, but you aren't doing your part to support our failing economy!!!

> Buy American, gosh darn-it!

Everyone has a moral responsibility to buy twinkies and coke, because every

soda-pusher's daughter deserves college, and every bureacrat has a wife to

support (or husband, in Massachusetts and California). Furthermore, if these

industries lose business, it would be wise and prudent to fully replace their

losses with government subsidies. In this way, people will still *consume* less

of these products, so no one's health is harmed, but the industry will still

stay afloat, producing nothing but jobs, which are the sole end, not means, of a

business-- to keep people employed.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> RE: Holy Organic

>

>

>

>>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.

>

>Many cattle are grown on marginal land, and a lot of them

>have always lived that way (mountain goats come to mind, and reindeer).

>I suppose if they were kept in some small area and always fed really

>bad grass, their health would suffer. But it really isn't the same ...

And that's what I was originally responding to - a post about beef steer in

confinement, that is likely, on sub par grass. I wasn't talking about wild

animals, which obviously have *choice*. Their taste buds can tell them where

the more nutritious plants are.

>when you are talking about farming *crops* ... most of the crops

>we grow require a lot of minerals etc. just to grow. Esp. the grain

>crops, which like nice rich alluvial soils. But cattle DO eat a lot

>of low nutrient grass, and make up the difference by eating

>minerals separately ... that's one of the reasons cattle have

>been so useful to humans, they can eat grass (which seems to

>do ok just about anywhere) and get their minerals as they can.

>Cattle thrive where you can't grow anything else. Part of it might

>be that they eat such a huge quantity of grass that they can take the

>nutrients out of it as needed?

they tend to go where the grass is most nutritious. The plains Buffalo knew

the grass was nutritionally rich and they focused on that area. A cow in a

confined pasture may or may not have access to nutritious grass. But again,

we're talking about beef steer (or were, originally) and these critters are

slaughtered at such a young age that I think it would be unusual to notice

any significant degeneration before slaughter.

>

>As for if the cattle are really in poor health or not ... I can't tell

>by looking at them. They SEEM healthy enough in terms of nice

>coat, no diarrhea, healthy calves, strong bones.

See above.

>So that is where I have a problem with the whole " healthy soil "

>thing. On our

>land, the forest is pretty much as it always was. It isn't great

>soil. But the trees

>and deer live off it well enough. I don't know if they are high or

>low brix trees,

>but the deer and rabbits seem to multiply and they don't act

>sickly, and they

>are living pretty much as they have for the last thousand years or

>so. The Indians

>lived off the deer and rabbits, and salmon, and they seem to have

>been healthy

>according to accounts and pictures.

I can't comment on the state of your soil and the animals that live off it,

but I don't see any contradiction in their doing " OK " to the idea that our

health is dependent on the health of the soil. Maybe the soil there is " OK " ,

at least OK enough that the animals live and reproduce. It doesn't require

high fertility soil for that. But I'm not talking about a state of just " not

acting sickly " I'm talking about a state of vibrant health like WAP's

primitives enjoyed. I sometimes wonder if we're so used to a certain state

of imperfect health, that we might be shocked at what *real* vibrant health

looks like should we be confronted with it, whether in a rabbit, deer or

human.

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]

>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

WHAT!!!!!?????!!!!!! You're not getting your minimum daily requirement of

Twinkies and Coke? Heidi, not only will you ruin your health with this

nonsense, but you aren't doing your part to support our failing economy!!!

Buy American, gosh darn-it!

ps-loved the human/bovine nutritional hierarchy.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 7/9/04 6:11:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

heidis@... writes:

> Ooops ... I forgot ... by not supporting the local food grid I could help

> send us all into a horrible depression!

Don't worry, Heidi, you are saved by the fact that this piece of Keynesian

drivel has been proven bankrupt both in theory and experience.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>they tend to go where the grass is most nutritious. The plains Buffalo knew

>the grass was nutritionally rich and they focused on that area. A cow in a

>confined pasture may or may not have access to nutritious grass. But again,

>we're talking about beef steer (or were, originally) and these critters are

>slaughtered at such a young age that I think it would be unusual to notice

>any significant degeneration before slaughter.

Most of the cattle I've seen are confined somewhat, and fed hay all

winter (they have to be). They do get mineral licks, so lack of minerals

is unlikely. The ones I visited lately were show steer, so they were older,

and they were really in good shape. The thing is, cattle are just really

" forgiving " when it comes to the range of conditions they can do

well in. I'm sure there is some optimum, but unless the breed is one

that is bred to be really picky, these are cattle that have survived

deserts, snows, drought, sea voyages etc. ... their bodies will store

stuff they need (in fat deposits and bone minerals) when they can

get it, and use it when the foraging isn't so great.

That is one of the great things about cattle ... and probably one of the

reasons why the " healthy cultures " tended to eat meat. Say you have

a human being who weighs 200 lbs (a big strong guy, say). And you have

a cow that weighs 400 lbs (the smaller heirloom breeds). OK, the human

will eat about 4 lbs of food a day, because that is about as much as a human

will tend to eat. The cow might eat 50 lbs of grass and other vegetation a

day. So the cow can process a huge amount of grass, and has to in order

to get enough calories ... and extract the minerals etc. that she needs.

So the human eats the meat of the cow, and/or the milk and butter, and

gets the extracted nourishment of a LOT of grass ... some of the grass

was good, some not so good. Humans can't process that much food,

so we get the extracted essence.

But many cattle today are kept in situations that are pretty much ideal

for cattle, or at least similar to how they have been kept forever, except

that instead of moving from a summer to a winter pasture they are fed

hay in the winter (which has also been traditional for a long time). The ones

I've seen aren't kept " confined " in the sense of being in a corral, they have

big fields and do have a lot of choice of food, and they are rotated between

fields.

>I can't comment on the state of your soil and the animals that live off it,

>but I don't see any contradiction in their doing " OK " to the idea that our

>health is dependent on the health of the soil. Maybe the soil there is " OK " ,

>at least OK enough that the animals live and reproduce. It doesn't require

>high fertility soil for that. But I'm not talking about a state of just " not

>acting sickly " I'm talking about a state of vibrant health like WAP's

>primitives enjoyed. I sometimes wonder if we're so used to a certain state

>of imperfect health, that we might be shocked at what *real* vibrant health

>looks like should we be confronted with it, whether in a rabbit, deer or

>human.

For that matter it is unlikely that any of Price's primatives were as healthy

as some of the Paleo tribes (which we've only seen as bones ...). But

it's mainly speculation without some quantitative analysis, I guess.

-- Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

>WHAT!!!!!?????!!!!!! You're not getting your minimum daily requirement of

>Twinkies and Coke? Heidi, not only will you ruin your health with this

>nonsense, but you aren't doing your part to support our failing economy!!!

>Buy American, gosh darn-it!

>

>

Ooops ... I forgot ... by not supporting the local food grid I could help

send us all into a horrible depression! Can I make up for it, by, say,

buying lots of US Cabernet? I promise to drink the same amount

as I used to drink of Coke!

> ps-loved the human/bovine nutritional hierarchy.

Thanks!

-- Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

Re: Holy Organic

>Can I make up for it, by, say,

> buying lots of US Cabernet? I promise to drink the same amount

> as I used to drink of Coke!

So, uh, how much wine are we talking about here, Ms. Glutenator? Ounce for

ounce, a Coke to Cabernet conversion could have some pretty serious

repercussions (think " Big Pulp " from 7-eleven...) And is it *really*

American? I mean, you don't ever allow any froggie wine (boo, hiss) to pass

over your lips, now do you?

Tee hee,

[Guest guest]

>>Can I make up for it, by, say,

>> buying lots of US Cabernet? I promise to drink the same amount

>> as I used to drink of Coke!

>

>So, uh, how much wine are we talking about here, Ms. Glutenator? Ounce for

>ounce, a Coke to Cabernet conversion could have some pretty serious

>repercussions (think " Big Pulp " from 7-eleven...) And is it *really*

>American? I mean, you don't ever allow any froggie wine (boo, hiss) to pass

>over your lips, now do you?

>

>Tee hee,

>

>

Well, since I hardly EVER drank Coke even in my non-NT days

it wouldn't take much to exceed that amount! And of course I

only drink the finest 2-buck-Chuck (if it is from Trader Joe's it

has to be American, no matter where it came from).

-- Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

> Well, since I hardly EVER drank Coke even in my non-NT days

> it wouldn't take much to exceed that amount! And of course I

> only drink the finest 2-buck-Chuck (if it is from Trader Joe's it

> has to be American, no matter where it came from).

>

> -- Heidi Jean

Ahhh...2 buck. Here in NY it's THREE buck chuck. Still not bad for

drinkable wine!

For some reason I thought you were a recovering soda addict...personally, I

only liked coke with certain foods (pizza, mainly, and movie popcorn with

peanut m & ms mixed in...) I also seem to crave coke when I'm in foreign

countries. Now THAT's patriotic.

[Guest guest]

>For some reason I thought you were a recovering soda addict...personally, I

>only liked coke with certain foods (pizza, mainly, and movie popcorn with

>peanut m & ms mixed in...) I also seem to crave coke when I'm in foreign

>countries. Now THAT's patriotic.

>

>

I have to admit I'm still a movie popcorn addict! A movie just doesn't

seem the same without popcorn. We did get a DVD projector though

(for computer demos) and guess what? It makes great home movies

so mostly I get home popped popcorn now with the movies ... wine

goes great with popcorn, FWIW!

-- Heidi Jean