Re: Organic and the Environment

[Guest guest]

>I think that when you start with bad soil there is no question you need to

>bring in inputs to get it jump-started. What is interesting though, is I

>*think* you can drastically reduce the amount of inputs necessary when the

>soil reaches *high* fertility. At least that's what I'm hearing from some ag

>folks who work the same soil (without rotating) year after year (even in a

>greenhouse) and are producing high brix crops. In fact, I think Albrecht

>says the same thing. Maybe, unbalanced, nutrient-deficient soil just

>requires more inputs to produce anything reasonable, and well-balanced,

>well-nourished soil is more efficient?

>

>

>Suze Fisher

I don't know much about the theory: in my lazy simplistic way I just

parked the chickens in the garden for a year or so, then made some raised beds

and planted. I'm sure the chickens added all kinds of stuff, and it

would have been better if I'd added more straw (I read). But the

garden went nuts! Huge potatoes, huge beans, huge collards.

The chickens also got rid of the grubs that normally eat the roots.

Of course chickens are " inputs " ... also " outputs " ... these got

leftovers and kefir (from cows somewhere else). But they can

transform bad soil really fast ...

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

--- Allan Balliett <igg@...> wrote:

> >Hmmmm...what is wrong with using a refractometer?

> That

> >seems infinitely easier and I can use it at the

> point

> >of sale rather than mailing off stuff to someplace.

>

> If you want to be scientific, as you appear to be,

> you'll find that

> there isn't much science behind the BRIX concept.

Hi Allan,

What I want is not to be sold a bill of goods about something being

nutritious when it is in fact not nutritious. Nor am I interested in

paying premium prices for foods that *might* be more nutritious or just

slightly more nutritious or what have you.

It seems to me that the movements that have long claimed to be producing

more nutritious food are *NOT* doing so, even after a VERY long time,

and after claiming that they are. For me at least, such rhetoric is not

good enough any more.

> For example, can

> you actually answer a question as simple as 'What is

> it that BRIX is

> measuring/ " and if the answer is 'sugars minerals

> etc,' then can you

> find a study any where that actually lists WHICH

> sugars, minerals etc

> you are seeing in your refractometer and if they

> have anything to do

> with human health?

I will ask on the brixtalk list what brix is actually measuring. I will

also ask if the minerals present have anything to do with human health.

Until then however I do have a few thoughts.

Unless I am missing something, higher sugar levels in food generally mean

higher mineral levels. I have heard this stated by both brixers and

anti-brixers. Jerry Brunetti said this twice at the WAPF conference. He

did not use the word brix but he certainly gave the classic definition

of it. He mentioned that with good soil the sugar levels rise which

allows the calcium to rise which then leads to an uptake of all the

other minerals necessary for the health of the plant and presumably for

our health.

As I noted this is the classic definition of brix. As Shakespeare said,

" " What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other word would

smell as sweet. "

Brunetti said all of this in the context of him pointing out what makes

food impervious to rotting. Which is another marker that the brixers use

as a way of determining foods that are high brix and thus good for you.

It is also my understanding that without higher sugar levels you will

not have higher mineral levels. And thus there is a certain plausibility

to the concept that brix is measuring something other than sugar, either

directly or indirectly. Or is this only a " scientific " formulation when

applied by a non-brixer like Brunetti?

Pardon my skepticism but this sounds rather strange to me. As did

Brunetti's skeptical attitude about brix that I overheard. Granted brix

is not the only tool in the box so to speak, but unless I am

misunderstanding the brix folks no one is making such a claim. But I

will say that if in fact it is a legitimate concept, then it DOES become

a powerful and dynamic tool for all of us non-farmers _at the point of

sale_.

By the way, given your opinion of brix as you wrote above, why would Rex

Harrill over on the brixtalk list call you an honorary brixhead?

I haven't been able to find that

> information, if

> it exists. I have found a lot of ag consultants who

> consider BRIX 1

> factor of highly nutritious food. Brunetti is fully

> aware of BRIX,

> but doesnt' consider it to be an accurate indicator

> of food quality

> for humans.

He might be fully aware of it, but if what I overhead in the conversation is

correct,

he didn't really give any solid arguments against it. No, I was left

with the impression he had other issues, which really had nothing to do

with brix per se. But I could be wrong.

To top things off, during his presentation he gave the classic brix argument.

Go figure.

As to your point about brix being only one factor of highly nutritious

food, I think a quote from the owner of the brixtalk list (Rex Harrill)

would be appropriate here:

" But as I say often: while Brix is a dynamite

tool, it is not the be-all, end-all of agriculture. "

I could multiply other quotes as well but I'm not sure that the idea

that brixers don't understand there are other factors is altogether

accurate.

No doubt high BRIX foods do taste

> better: WE'VE ALL LOVED

> SUGARS SINCE WE WERE BABIES!! It doesn't have to be

> highly refined

> sugar to make our organisms happy, that's fer sure.

Now this is interesting. In a previous post you said that taste is a way

of determining good and highly nutritious food, which I agreed with by

the way. And presumably when we say taste we mean " tastes better " than

the typical SAD crap. Now you seem to be saying that taste *isn't*

reliable, that sugar foods taste better whether or not they are junky.

I'm not sure I buy that argument. It would appear that higher brix

doesn't automatically equate to better taste if the brix has been

artificially raised. Rex Harrill's story about taking high brix orange

juice and then adding sugar to it is a good illustration. The added

sugar certainly raises the brix but folks find the taste yucky. This

also seems to illustrate that brix is measuring something more than

sugar, ie. *total* dissolved solids rather than just sugar, and that the

total measure is a more accurate indicator good taste than just sugar.

At any rate, whatever brix is measuring it certainly seems simplistic

to *equate* it (brix) just with sugar. In fact all the brix stuff I have

read, for all practical purposes, doesn't do such a thing.

So unless the brixers are lying about imperviousness to rot and pests, I

would be slow to attribute something to them which they don't seem to be

saying. In fact they would argue (contrary to what you say above) that

the sugar *alone* DOES NOT make our organisms happy.

So I'm not sure what science you are referring to. I've read about high

brix crops that don't rot and don't have bug problems. I've read

Albrecht about cows as chemists. I hear

Brunetti and his take on food that doesn't rot. I still fail to see the

contradiction or the problem.

> Here's part of an answer to my questions about BRIX

> in wine grape

> harvesting to noted Northern California wine grape

> consultant, Bob

> Shaffer:

Ah you know this thread occurred over on the brixtalk list and there

were several responses to what you said. I would prefer not to rehash

them over here on NN without the proper context.

<snip>

> Thanks for all of your good questions, .

> -Allan

Thanks for your answers.

take care,

" Scholarship is essentially confirming your early paranoia through

a deeper factual analysis. "

Murray Rothbard

Voting is Evil

http://tinyurl.com/5ykuz

" Vegetarians, come away from The Dark Side.

Pork is the other white meat; beef is what’s for dinner;

and a day without pepper-crusted venison tenderloin is

like a day without sunshine. "

Brad Edmonds