RE: Organic Food: Malnutrition without Poison

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 7/5/04 7:56:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

christiekeith@... writes:

> >> As

> long as it is possible to buy " organic " raw milk from holstein cows

> fed " organic " hybrid corn, or any " organic " hybrid grass in their

> diet, organic food will be best described as malnutrition without

> poison. <<

>

> This is overstating the case. Obviously something can be organic and NOT be

> fed organic corn etc.... the fact that others are doing so doesn't meant

> that " organic food is malnutrition without poision " by definition. It means

> we still have to do the work to determine what the growing practices of the

> farmers from whom we buy are food are, even if they bear the " organic "

> label.

Christie, I think you missed the point. Hybrid corn, whether organic or not,

is " malnutrition " by definition (at least if you use open-pollinated corn as

a nutritional standard.) So the point has nothing to do with farmers feeding

non-organic corn... the point is that even if the farmers entirely follow the

system, and use organic hybrid corn, the nutrition isn't there.

If Chi's point had been that some farmers will not feed organic corn, then

that would make the point that " organic food contains poison, " not " organic food

is malnutrition without poison. "

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 7/5/04 9:13:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

christiekeith@... writes:

> My point is that there's no reason to

> define " organic " foods as being " malnutrition without poison, " because they

> might be *nutrititious* foods without poison. You can't tell from the label

> alone.

Ok, I agree then. I misinterpreted you. I don't think that really detracts

from Chi's point though. I think (his? her?) point was that organic per se

is no guarantee of nutrition, not that no food could simultaneously fulfill the

organic requirements while also being nutritious.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>> As

long as it is possible to buy " organic " raw milk from holstein cows

fed " organic " hybrid corn, or any " organic " hybrid grass in their

diet, organic food will be best described as malnutrition without

poison. <<

This is overstating the case. Obviously something can be organic and NOT be

fed organic corn etc.... the fact that others are doing so doesn't meant

that " organic food is malnutrition without poision " by definition. It means

we still have to do the work to determine what the growing practices of the

farmers from whom we buy are food are, even if they bear the " organic "

label.

Christie

[Guest guest]

>> the point is that even if the farmers entirely follow the

system, and use organic hybrid corn, the nutrition isn't there. <<

Yeah, I agree..... that's sort of my point. You can't define organic

food as " malnutrition without poision " because organic food CAN be

nutritious food.... or not. It depends, just as with conventionally farmed

foods, on HOW it's grown/raised. My point is that there's no reason to

define " organic " foods as being " malnutrition without poison, " because they

might be *nutrititious* foods without poison. You can't tell from the label

alone.

Christie

[Guest guest]

> This is overstating the case. Obviously something can be organic

> and NOT be fed organic corn etc.... the fact that others are

> doing so doesn't meant that " organic food is malnutrition

> without poision " by definition. It means we still have to do the

> work to determine what the growing practices of the farmers from

> whom we buy are food are, even if they bear the " organic "

> label.

Hi Christie:

What evidence do you offer that I am overstating the case?

What are the growing practices of the farmers from whom you buy food

that ensure the food is nutritious?

Chi

[Guest guest]

>> Ok, I agree then. I misinterpreted you. I don't think that really

detracts

from Chi's point though. I think (his? her?) point was that organic per se

is no guarantee of nutrition, not that no food could simultaneously fulfill

the

organic requirements while also being nutritious. <<

It was a clarification of the point, not a disagreement. I agree completely

that organic in and of itself does not produce a nutritionally superior

food. But some organic producers do.

Christie

[Guest guest]

>> What evidence do you offer that I am overstating the case? <<

Just simple logic. I was questioning your language, not your point. I think

I clarified this in my last post to but if not, let me know and I'll

take another crack at it.

Christie

[Guest guest]

>> What evidence do you offer that I am overstating the case? <<

> Just simple logic. I was questioning your language,

> not your point. I think I clarified this in my last

> post to but if not, let me know and I'll

> take another crack at it.

Hi Christie:

The logic of your statement, " Just simple logic " escapes me.

Are you going to answer my second question? I would be interested to

know what it is that some organic farmers are doing to ensure their

crops are nutritious. Also, of all organic farmers, what percentage

would be using these methods?

Chi

[Guest guest]

At 06:12 PM 7/5/2004, you wrote:

>Organic food means the absence of poison. The presence or absence of

>poison has nothing to do with the presence of absence of nutrition.

>As far as I know, there are no organic regulations for nutrition. As

no, there aren't. but also, no one claims there is.

>long as it is possible to buy " organic " raw milk from holstein cows

>fed " organic " hybrid corn, or any " organic " hybrid grass in their

>diet, organic food will be best described as malnutrition without

>poison. If organic organizations had any interest in nutrition they

>would not permit growing hybrids or using any modern high production

>animal. For anyone to believe otherwise is, imo, simply self-

>delustion.

*sigh*

i just don't agree with you, chi (are you new?). you don't put a child

directly into highschool. you put him in kindergarten, and the first grade,

and you teach him everything you need to know. if a conventional farmer is

just converting, then what he knows is grain. so he starts off at least

with non-chemical grain. then they teach him more and more, and eventually

we get to the point where they're all happy jerseys or whatever, munching

on grass and hay - and there are plenty of organic farmers who ARE grassfed

only.

sure, there are organic holsteins and that's ridiculous. but if the farmer

had holsteins, what - is he going to sell off his herd and buy a new

heritage breed herd in the blink of the eye? that's just not feasible. you

have to give people the opportunity to learn. in the meantime, *you* don't

have to drink that. however, there may be someone in chicago somewhere who

would prefer non-chemical grainfed butter cause it's the best they can get.

would you begrudge them that? if you can get better then you totally

should, but in the meantime you need to have some tolerance for all the

farmers who are just beginning this journey.

on our farm, we don't have any modern breeds at all (highland cattle,

gloucester old spot pigs, several rounds of heritage birds, shetland

sheep...), and we don't use any grain at all. and i use my farm and all my

interactions with my neighbors as a way to teach them that it is, indeed,

possible to raise up a cow without grain. but you have to understand, some

of these people even went to ag schools - they were taught that you can't

raise a cow without grain! have you never been taught something in error,

and then struggled to overcome the longheld but false belief? it's a

process, and you can't damn a person for making the first step, or there'd

be no steps at all.

-katja

[Guest guest]

At 07:54 AM 7/6/2004, you wrote:

>

>Hi Christie:

>The logic of your statement, " Just simple logic " escapes me.

>Are you going to answer my second question? I would be interested to

>know what it is that some organic farmers are doing to ensure their

>crops are nutritious. Also, of all organic farmers, what percentage

>would be using these methods?

>Chi

you should go back in the thread, chi - i've been talking about the answer

to this at length.

-katja

[Guest guest]

>> The logic of your statement, " Just simple logic " escapes me. <<

Let's try this, then.

You say " Organic food is malnutrition without poison, " presumably (correct

me if I'm wrong) because there is nothing in organic certification that

requires farmers to do anything to increase, maintain, or improve soil

fertility or the nutritional content of their foods.

But since there is nothing in organic certification that PREVENTS farmers

from doing so, it's perfectly possible for a farmer to produce food that is

certified organic AND that is nutritious. Therefore your statement is, on

its face, illogical and incorrect.

>> Are you going to answer my second question? I would be interested to

know what it is that some organic farmers are doing to ensure their

crops are nutritious. Also, of all organic farmers, what percentage

would be using these methods? <<

No, I'm not going to because I cannot. It's totally irrelevant to my point,

which is about the logic of your statement, not anyone's practices. Even if

NO farmers are doing these things, since nothing is preventing it from

happening, that in and of itself is enough to invalidate your statement that

" organic is malnutrition without poison. "

Tell me, what would stop a farmer who produces certified organic foods from

also producing nutritious foods? What is the obstacle?

Christie

[Guest guest]

Hi,

I am sorry to barge in on this conversation. I am very interested though. I

have 5 acres that I let somebody graze their sheep every year free. They

haven't been using it though as they sold their sheep. My neighbor next to

me has horses that they breed and one pet cow and wanted to use it. I told

her when we move there I wanted to raise a cow and goat and just have them

graze so they be be grazed only. She said that her family owns a cattle

ranch in Nevada and that she grew up there and you can't raise cattle

without extra grain that they would die. This has been causing me so much

confusion because I have been lurking a long time on this list and I ageed

with most of what is said here but I thought if she grew up with cows etc

she must know. Could it possibly be true that some of these people would not

know they can graze their animals and not feed grains etc? I thought the

reason farmers or ranchers fed grain etc is because they didn't have enough

land or they wanted them fatter or heavier for a better profit or to get a

milder taste.

SheilaN

and we don't use any grain at all. and i use my farm and all my

> interactions with my neighbors as a way to teach them that it is, indeed,

> possible to raise up a cow without grain. but you have to understand, some

> of these people even went to ag schools - they were taught that you can't

> raise a cow without grain! have you never been taught something in error,

> and then struggled to overcome the longheld but false belief? it's a

> process, and you can't damn a person for making the first step, or there'd

> be no steps at all.

>

> -katja

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

At 12:28 PM 7/6/2004, you wrote:

>You say " Organic food is malnutrition without poison, " presumably (correct

>me if I'm wrong) because there is nothing in organic certification that

>requires farmers to do anything to increase, maintain, or improve soil

>fertility or the nutritional content of their foods.

>

>But since there is nothing in organic certification that PREVENTS farmers

>from doing so, it's perfectly possible for a farmer to produce food that is

>certified organic AND that is nutritious. Therefore your statement is, on

>its face, illogical and incorrect.

pardon me christie (and thank you), i have to interject!

again, speaking only from the NOFA standpoint, we ARE required to increase,

maintain, and improve soil fertility. i have little time, so here's just a

smidgen from the regulations - you can look the rest up online:

" Ecological soil management is essential to the prevention of many crop

management problems. 'a healthy plant grows from a healthy soil' is the

principle axiom of organic agriculture. it is scientifically accepted that

well nourished plants are more resistant to pests and diseases. .....a

producer must select tillage and cultivation practices that maintain or

improve the physical, chemical, and biological condition of the soil and

minimize erosion...the following text discusses important nutrients soil

must provide for a healthy crop [long list of things and appropriate ways

to get them]....a farm with erosion, pollution or other conservation

problems (which no one has yet talked about but which are just as critical

as what's in the soil) must demonstrate a program which halts, heals, or

corrects the damage to maintain their certification...large section on

biodynamic compost tea...

anyway. before claiming that other places aren't also required to do this,

i'd want to read the standards - but at any rate, we are required.

-katja

[Guest guest]

At 12:49 PM 7/6/2004, you wrote:

>Hi,

>I am sorry to barge in on this conversation. I am very interested though. I

>have 5 acres that I let somebody graze their sheep every year free. They

>haven't been using it though as they sold their sheep. My neighbor next to

>me has horses that they breed and one pet cow and wanted to use it. I told

>her when we move there I wanted to raise a cow and goat and just have them

>graze so they be be grazed only. She said that her family owns a cattle

>ranch in Nevada and that she grew up there and you can't raise cattle

>without extra grain that they would die. This has been causing me so much

>confusion because I have been lurking a long time on this list and I ageed

>with most of what is said here but I thought if she grew up with cows etc

>she must know. Could it possibly be true that some of these people would not

>know they can graze their animals and not feed grains etc? I thought the

>reason farmers or ranchers fed grain etc is because they didn't have enough

>land or they wanted them fatter or heavier for a better profit or to get a

>milder taste.

you are correct sheila - frequently the western cattle ranches have more

animals than the land can support, which is to say, there's not enough food

without the grain. feeding the cows grain fatten them up faster and get

them to market quicker - 6-9 months on grain vs. 18+ months on grass. the

biggest factor though is that people are taught at ag schools and in the

conventional farming community that cows without grains will die. to a

large extent, it's just not their fault - they were taught the

misconception by people that should have been trustworthy. a long time ag

professor said to me recently that if i refused to use ivermectin (a

chemical pesticide) on my cows (you give them a " shower " , essentially),

that the maggots would eat all my calves alive. this man loved his animals

and truly believed what he was saying! how many farmers did this man teach?

i don't know, but that's what we're up against. that's why the organic

movement is so critical - it's the only thing that's proving to people that

these ag school professors are not necessarily the final word. it's not

perfect, but it's allowing people the resources and the support to research

better ways of raising animals, and it's teaching them alternatives to

chemicals and grains.

one codicil - science freak breeds such as holsteins may not thrive without

grains. they've been bred to be overlarge, and to produce more milk than

they should by nature, and in order to support that size body, it might be

that their systems are dependent now on the grain. i suspect this is true,

however, i haven't experimented with a holstein to find out for sure.

however, there's quite a revival going on in heritage breeds, largely

sponsored by the organic movement: heritage breed animals are smarter,

healthier, more resistant to pests and disease, etc, and they thrive on

their traditional diets: grass! (or in the case of pigs and poultry,

whatever they can get )

anyway, just make sure you have a care about the breed you select, and

you'll do just fine on grass! if you want some suggestions, holler!

-katja

>SheilaN

>

>

>and we don't use any grain at all. and i use my farm and all my

> > interactions with my neighbors as a way to teach them that it is, indeed,

> > possible to raise up a cow without grain. but you have to understand, some

> > of these people even went to ag schools - they were taught that you can't

> > raise a cow without grain! have you never been taught something in error,

> > and then struggled to overcome the longheld but false belief? it's a

> > process, and you can't damn a person for making the first step, or there'd

> > be no steps at all.

> >

> > -katja

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

quick question -

can a cow used for beef be exclusively grass fed? the farmer who

will supply my co-op (you know the story, katja - i'm talking about

the one who has jerseys not the dutch belt farmer) says beef cows

can't gain enough weight being fed 100% grass, although dairy cows

are fine 100% pastured.

tia!

erica z

> >Hi,

> >I am sorry to barge in on this conversation. I am very interested

though. I

> >have 5 acres that I let somebody graze their sheep every year

free. They

> >haven't been using it though as they sold their sheep. My

neighbor next to

> >me has horses that they breed and one pet cow and wanted to use

it. I told

> >her when we move there I wanted to raise a cow and goat and just

have them

> >graze so they be be grazed only. She said that her family owns a

cattle

> >ranch in Nevada and that she grew up there and you can't raise

cattle

> >without extra grain that they would die. This has been causing me

so much

> >confusion because I have been lurking a long time on this list

and I ageed

> >with most of what is said here but I thought if she grew up with

cows etc

> >she must know. Could it possibly be true that some of these

people would not

> >know they can graze their animals and not feed grains etc? I

thought the

> >reason farmers or ranchers fed grain etc is because they didn't

have enough

> >land or they wanted them fatter or heavier for a better profit or

to get a

> >milder taste.

>

>

> you are correct sheila - frequently the western cattle ranches

have more

> animals than the land can support, which is to say, there's not

enough food

> without the grain. feeding the cows grain fatten them up faster

and get

> them to market quicker - 6-9 months on grain vs. 18+ months on

grass. the

> biggest factor though is that people are taught at ag schools and

in the

> conventional farming community that cows without grains will die.

to a

> large extent, it's just not their fault - they were taught the

> misconception by people that should have been trustworthy. a long

time ag

> professor said to me recently that if i refused to use ivermectin

(a

> chemical pesticide) on my cows (you give them a " shower " ,

essentially),

> that the maggots would eat all my calves alive. this man loved his

animals

> and truly believed what he was saying! how many farmers did this

man teach?

> i don't know, but that's what we're up against. that's why the

organic

> movement is so critical - it's the only thing that's proving to

people that

> these ag school professors are not necessarily the final word.

it's not

> perfect, but it's allowing people the resources and the support to

research

> better ways of raising animals, and it's teaching them

alternatives to

> chemicals and grains.

>

> one codicil - science freak breeds such as holsteins may not

thrive without

> grains. they've been bred to be overlarge, and to produce more

milk than

> they should by nature, and in order to support that size body, it

might be

> that their systems are dependent now on the grain. i suspect this

is true,

> however, i haven't experimented with a holstein to find out for

sure.

> however, there's quite a revival going on in heritage breeds,

largely

> sponsored by the organic movement: heritage breed animals are

smarter,

> healthier, more resistant to pests and disease, etc, and they

thrive on

> their traditional diets: grass! (or in the case of pigs and

poultry,

> whatever they can get )

>

> anyway, just make sure you have a care about the breed you select,

and

> you'll do just fine on grass! if you want some suggestions, holler!

> -katja

>

>

> >SheilaN

> >

> >

> >and we don't use any grain at all. and i use my farm and all my

> > > interactions with my neighbors as a way to teach them that it

is, indeed,

> > > possible to raise up a cow without grain. but you have to

understand, some

> > > of these people even went to ag schools - they were taught

that you can't

> > > raise a cow without grain! have you never been taught

something in error,

> > > and then struggled to overcome the longheld but false belief?

it's a

> > > process, and you can't damn a person for making the first

step, or there'd

> > > be no steps at all.

> > >

> > > -katja

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

hee! bah! we raise highland cattle (which we do NOT dehorn!) and feed them

only grass. instead of supplementing with a chemical salt block, we use

redmond real salt (in rock form) and thorovin, which is seaweed. for this

breed of cow (and also for shetland sheep), seaweed is part of their

traditional diet.

it will take them *longer* to reach market weight - two to three times as

long - and perhaps that's his issue: maybe he doesn't want to wait 18

months? frankly, i think a lactating/pregnant cow needs a lot more energy

than some random steer fattening up for beef (well, duh), and if a cow can

lactate on just grass/hay, why on earth can't it be beef on just grass/hay?

-katja

At 01:16 PM 7/6/2004, you wrote:

>quick question -

>

>can a cow used for beef be exclusively grass fed? the farmer who

>will supply my co-op (you know the story, katja - i'm talking about

>the one who has jerseys not the dutch belt farmer) says beef cows

>can't gain enough weight being fed 100% grass, although dairy cows

>are fine 100% pastured.

>

>tia!

>

>erica z

>

>

> > >Hi,

> > >I am sorry to barge in on this conversation. I am very interested

>though. I

> > >have 5 acres that I let somebody graze their sheep every year

>free. They

> > >haven't been using it though as they sold their sheep. My

>neighbor next to

> > >me has horses that they breed and one pet cow and wanted to use

>it. I told

> > >her when we move there I wanted to raise a cow and goat and just

>have them

> > >graze so they be be grazed only. She said that her family owns a

>cattle

> > >ranch in Nevada and that she grew up there and you can't raise

>cattle

> > >without extra grain that they would die. This has been causing me

>so much

> > >confusion because I have been lurking a long time on this list

>and I ageed

> > >with most of what is said here but I thought if she grew up with

>cows etc

> > >she must know. Could it possibly be true that some of these

>people would not

> > >know they can graze their animals and not feed grains etc? I

>thought the

> > >reason farmers or ranchers fed grain etc is because they didn't

>have enough

> > >land or they wanted them fatter or heavier for a better profit or

>to get a

> > >milder taste.

> >

> >

> > you are correct sheila - frequently the western cattle ranches

>have more

> > animals than the land can support, which is to say, there's not

>enough food

> > without the grain. feeding the cows grain fatten them up faster

>and get

> > them to market quicker - 6-9 months on grain vs. 18+ months on

>grass. the

> > biggest factor though is that people are taught at ag schools and

>in the

> > conventional farming community that cows without grains will die.

>to a

> > large extent, it's just not their fault - they were taught the

> > misconception by people that should have been trustworthy. a long

>time ag

> > professor said to me recently that if i refused to use ivermectin

>(a

> > chemical pesticide) on my cows (you give them a " shower " ,

>essentially),

> > that the maggots would eat all my calves alive. this man loved his

>animals

> > and truly believed what he was saying! how many farmers did this

>man teach?

> > i don't know, but that's what we're up against. that's why the

>organic

> > movement is so critical - it's the only thing that's proving to

>people that

> > these ag school professors are not necessarily the final word.

>it's not

> > perfect, but it's allowing people the resources and the support to

>research

> > better ways of raising animals, and it's teaching them

>alternatives to

> > chemicals and grains.

> >

> > one codicil - science freak breeds such as holsteins may not

>thrive without

> > grains. they've been bred to be overlarge, and to produce more

>milk than

> > they should by nature, and in order to support that size body, it

>might be

> > that their systems are dependent now on the grain. i suspect this

>is true,

> > however, i haven't experimented with a holstein to find out for

>sure.

> > however, there's quite a revival going on in heritage breeds,

>largely

> > sponsored by the organic movement: heritage breed animals are

>smarter,

> > healthier, more resistant to pests and disease, etc, and they

>thrive on

> > their traditional diets: grass! (or in the case of pigs and

>poultry,

> > whatever they can get )

> >

> > anyway, just make sure you have a care about the breed you select,

>and

> > you'll do just fine on grass! if you want some suggestions, holler!

> > -katja

> >

> >

> > >SheilaN

> > >

> > >

> > >and we don't use any grain at all. and i use my farm and all my

> > > > interactions with my neighbors as a way to teach them that it

>is, indeed,

> > > > possible to raise up a cow without grain. but you have to

>understand, some

> > > > of these people even went to ag schools - they were taught

>that you can't

> > > > raise a cow without grain! have you never been taught

>something in error,

> > > > and then struggled to overcome the longheld but false belief?

>it's a

> > > > process, and you can't damn a person for making the first

>step, or there'd

> > > > be no steps at all.

> > > >

> > > > -katja

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

[Guest guest]

Re: Organic Food: Malnutrition without Poison

> anyway, just make sure you have a care about the breed you select, and

> you'll do just fine on grass! if you want some suggestions, holler!

> -katja

Thanks Katya, I had heard that before regarding the breed but I had

forgotten which one was best was it the Jersey?

I just can't believe that this misinformation can be imbedded in our culture

so deep that it can be taken as knowledge. Must have been the salespeople

that traveled from farm to farm selling grain and pesticide and Ag schools

supported by them. Kinda like the problem with the vets who think feeding

dogs grains is better for them. I also had that kind of problem with Drs

that put me on high sugar and grain diets for my diabetes. At least high for

me. I have controlled my blood sugar for years with a lowcarb diet which was

considered dangerous a few years ago. I had to lie to my Dr about my diet

even though he ended up calling me his prize patient.

Thanks again, SheilaN

[Guest guest]

> You say " Organic food is malnutrition without poison, "

> presumably (correct me if I'm wrong) because there is nothing

> in organic certification that requires farmers to do anything to

> increase, maintain, or improve soil fertility or the nutritional

> content of their foods.

You are wrong. I say organic food is best described as malnutrition

without poison because organic farmers, like conventional farmers

are concerned with crop yield per acre, not nutrition per acre.

Organic organizations are concerned with what is in the food, not

with what isn't in the food. From having read Weston Price, Francis

Pottenger, Jr., Albrecht and Andre Voisin, I can say that

they would all agree on one thing for sure, it's not what is in our

food that kills us, but rather what isn't. Also, at least 3 of the 4

would agree that soil fertility is the basis not only of nutrition,

but the basis of all life.

I did point out that organic organizations themselves have no

requirements for any mimimum nutritional level in organically

certified food, thus allowing organic farmers to use similar

agricultural techniques as the conventional farmers use in

maximizing yield. If you don't like what organic organizations are

doing with respect to nutrition, I suggest you complain to them.

Don't expect to be well received, however.

> But since there is nothing in organic certification that

> PREVENTS farmers from doing so, it's perfectly possible

> for a farmer to produce food that is certified organic AND that

> is nutritious. Therefore your statement is, on its face,

> illogical and incorrect.

Um, I think it's you who is having the problem with logic here.

> >> Are you going to answer my second question?

> No, I'm not going to because I cannot.

Nice admission.

> Tell me, what would stop a farmer who produces certified

> organic foods from also producing nutritious foods?

> What is the obstacle?

Money. Not only do they not get paid extra for producing extra

nutrition, in order to increase their yield of nutrition they will

generally need to decrease their yield per acre. So more nutrition

for the customer means less money for the farmer. I know a few

organic farmers are willing to make this sacrifice, but most

wouldn't even consider it for a moment. Take a booth at an organic

agricultural trade show and promote a product that increases the

nutritional value of the crop 10% and decreases the yield 10% and

see what real interest organic farmers have in nutrition compared to

their interest in money.

Chi

[Guest guest]

I wanted to raise a cow and goat and just have themgraze so they be be grazed

only. She said that her family owns a cattleranch in Nevada and that she grew up

there and you can't raise cattlewithout extra grain that they would die.

Hi Sheila,

I'm new on this list but I grew up in WV on a very low budget farm (poor). We

had cows, and we never fed grains. They grazed in the summertime and during the

winter we fed hay (no corn, wheat, etc.). Our cows lived for years. I've never

heard that cows would die without grains.

Irene

_______________________________________________

No banners. No pop-ups. No kidding.

Make My Way your home on the Web - http://www.myway.com

[Guest guest]

>

> again, speaking only from the NOFA standpoint, we ARE

> required to increase, maintain, and improve soil

> fertility.

Great, so katja how many farmers has NOFA decertified as organic in

the last 10 years because the farmers failed to " increase, maintain,

and improve soil fertility? " Does NOFA permit crop rotation, a

practice that destroys soil fertility faster that planting the same

crop in the same field year after year?

What percentage of organic farmers decertified by NOFA in the last

10 years have been decertified because they failed to " increase,

maintain and improve soil fertility " , compared to the percentage

that have been decertified because they were caught cheating with

banned substances?

Chi

[Guest guest]

> >I would be interested to know what it is that some organic

> >farmers are doing to ensure their crops are nutritious.

> >Also, of all organic farmers, what percentage

> >would be using these methods?

> >Chi

> you should go back in the thread, chi - i've

> been talking about the answer to this at length.

Hi katja:

This thread is called " Organic Food: Malnutrition without Poison " . I

started it. Where in this thread did you talk about the answer to

this question in depth? Or, perhaps, is it possible that you were

talking about the answer to this question in another thread with a

different title? Either way, please provide a message number

reference.

Chi

[Guest guest]

>

>Hi katja:

>This thread is called " Organic Food: Malnutrition without Poison " . I

>started it. Where in this thread did you talk about the answer to

>this question in depth? Or, perhaps, is it possible that you were

>talking about the answer to this question in another thread with a

>different title? Either way, please provide a message number

>reference.

>

>Chi

sorry, i just assumed you ammended the title. it'd been " holy organic "

before...

-katja

[Guest guest]

At 03:01 PM 7/6/2004, you wrote:

>You are wrong. I say organic food is best described as malnutrition

>without poison because organic farmers, like conventional farmers

>are concerned with crop yield per acre, not nutrition per acre.

see? this is my problem.

can you guys please not lump everyone together? sure, i can't imagine that

hain group is concerned beyond crop yield. however, every organic farmer i

know or that i have met (granted, every one has been through a NOFA event,

and we've already established that people think NOFA is above par, though i

don't know if that's actually true or if it's just perception) has been far

MORE concerned with nutrition per acre than yield per acre. we have plenty

of market to sell our meats (and veggies, or whatever) at appropriate

prices for the work that goes into them, we don't need to cram more onto

the land than it will support, and in fact, we're encouraged not to anyway!

-katja

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

From: " Irene " <iclark@...>

> Hi Sheila,

> I'm new on this list but I grew up in WV on a very low budget farm (poor).

We had cows, and we never fed grains. They grazed in the summertime and

during the winter we fed hay (no corn, wheat, etc.). Our cows lived for

years. I've never heard that cows would die without grains.

> Irene

>

Hi Irene, It must have been one of those ag professors that Heidi was

talking about that taught her family.

I think my grandparents did the same as you in Nebraska although I think

they grew wheat also.

SheilaN

[Guest guest]

>quick question -

>

>can a cow used for beef be exclusively grass fed? the farmer who

>will supply my co-op (you know the story, katja - i'm talking about

>the one who has jerseys not the dutch belt farmer) says beef cows

>can't gain enough weight being fed 100% grass, although dairy cows

>are fine 100% pastured.

>

>tia!

>

>erica z

We are currently eating a steer that was grass fed ... 1500 lbs on the

hoof. 700 lbs in the freezer. Don't get much bigger than that!

Like Katja said, they grow slower on grass, and have less fat

usually (this was a Longhorn, and they usually don't have much

fat anyway, but it's fat enough to be tasty).

-- Heidi Jean