Re: Organic & Soil Nutrients and Mineralization

Bargyla Rateaver (brateaver@earthlink.net)
Fri, 15 Oct 1999 21:29:39 -0700

Whoever wrote the words about ions/molecule absorption is partly right, partly
wrong. WHY is it that people can't get away from ion absorption? Here is
someone smart enough to recognize that plants absorb nutrients AS MOLECULES,
and still he gets right back into the old rut, talking about "soluble ions"
beng taken up by plants? Why take up both molecules and ions? Plants do NOT
take up ions; they take up molecules, like all other living tissue,
human/animal.
I don't see why it is such a battle to get people to accept this, just
because academia has been and is being paid to tell all those lies about ion
absorption. Anyone can get to a library and look up the data AND PHOTOS,
showing that the plant has taken up even particles, which are collections of
molecules, NOT ions !!! Seeing is believing here.
No one has ever shown photos of ions being absorbed.

Klaus Wiegand wrote:

> hello dennis
>
> >I added the word nutrient back into the title, because I think it
> >important to have regard for the manner in which a healthy,
> >colloidal soil provides minerals in molecular form to the plant,
> >rather than simply as ions of elements. We can look on the ways
> >this stuff gets into plants as dumb or smart processes. If you
> >put enough soluble ions around a plant root yes, sure, poisonous
> >or nutritious, they are likely to be taken up - a dumb process.
> >But I suspect that much smarter processes are at work in
> >molecular transfers between roots and a healthy environment and
> >these are what is critical.
>
> that's what i do expect, too. it would be a big simplification
> (and in fact soil scientists - and also our consultants have the
> most problems with single results from different tests) to reduce
> soil quality to properties, which can be measured (and even more
> problematic: combined to a recommandation) in the lab. some are
> known, but quite confuse or nothing more than practically useless
> academic ivory tower definitions. i only know the german
> expressions, but i'm almost sure, you also heard and know them,
> too.
>
> so what are usual the tests for "fertility" and "activity"?
>
> a) humus content
> b) ion exchange capacity
> c) dehydrogenase activity
> d) carbon dioxide production
>
> each of them gives an indication, but everyone has it's problems
>
> too much of humus will result in cultivation problems, mineral
> binding, exchange capacity gives false indication (example: the
> down under soils you mentioned or tropical soils with high
> aluminium contents, c) and d) give an indication for high
> activity, but there the question: is it useful, if the activity
> is so high, that the organic matter is depleted and destroyed TOO
> fast ?
>
> so i wonder, why in our 5000 years history of soil cultivation
> noone came up with a simple test (i have s.th in mind like the
> cress test or an earthworm test, which also have their limits -
> they for ex. do not show mineral content), which gives the grower
> an indication IN ADVANCE. when you have finished your harvest,
> you know better and do not need scientific tests anymore...
>
> i do not expect a perfect test for every species, but a test,
> which will give a ROUGH indication for every larger treatment of
> my fields. example: how does liming influence soil "fertility"
> on MY special fields ? test should be done with MY soil, not the
> GENERAL results. these are known to everyone! is there really
> nothing on the horizont??
>
> next (as soil "quality" will influence food quality)
>
> how can we measure food quality ? here i also find it highly
> reductionistic to reduce quality to mineral content or vitamins.
> enzyme activity, fatty acids, coenzyme-a metabolites or enzyme
> inhibitor content might be much more important. we even do not
> know most of the components of our food, consequently we do not
> know their value! a rude bean has high mineral contents,
> nevertheless it is TOXIC to humans!! molded food has the same
> mineral content as fresh food ! vitamin usually is even higher
> due to the bacteria! does that mean, that we should eat molded
> food? certainly not.
>
> what means fresh ? taste and smell often fail: the more "tasty" a
> raspberry, the more toxicants it has! apples with a nice smell
> may have much lower vitamin contents. wine with too high copper
> contents taste best! protein content is highly useless, because
> the biological value depends on the TYPE of protein ("amino acid
> value" i.e. folding) and not so much on the total amount. in rat
> feeding tests total rye amino acids have shown to be much more
> valuable that the same amount of total wheat amino acids. if you
> treat leak with E605, you will only find 54 instead of 59 amino
> acids in untreated leak. if you fertilize potatoes with rising
> amounts of nitrogen, rat feeding tests show a decrease in the
> amino acid value (while vitamin c, carotin and overall protein
> content rises). is it more useful to breed apples with lower
> amounts of vitamins, but which can be well stored and eaten in
> winter, when no fresh food is at hand or apples with a lot of
> vitamin c, which boost your blood serum level to unknown heights,
> but begin to foul almost on the tree? should we breed for high
> vitamin contents, if cultivation of these varieties might be a
> disaster for the grower due to low resistance? and so on and so
> on....
>
> and there is even another problem, i see: i know of NO treatment
> for a special improvement of fruits, which does not have at least
> another setback in another special field. so whatever i do as
> farmer, it will also have at least one disadvantage! result:
> confusion all around...
>
> but there is hope: people themself. example: there is a tribe in
> southern india, which "knows", what is good for them to eat. once
> every year some of them walk to a place more than 100 miles away
> from their home. there they collect clay, roll them to pills,
> bake them in fire and carry these pills home. at every meal they
> eat one or two of these pills. ethnobiologists asked the elder of
> them, why they did it. they didn't know, they just told them that
> the parents of their parents did so and that they did well.. now
> the biologists took home samples of these pills and analysed
> them. result: this clay corresponds to the IDEAL ultramodern
> recommandations for mineral uptake and they told us, that this
> "primitive" tribe shows the ideal behavior for mineral
> supplementation. i would say it the other way round. modern
> scientists proved nothing more, than what these "primitives" knew
> long before.. other "primitive" societies are also quite used to
> eat pure soil from time to time, they are used to eat their
> vegetables often unwashed with all the soil bacteria on them (and
> thus with the b-vitamins of these bacteria). eat afaik the
> aborigines are also in the habit of eating soil. when indian
> people moved to the usa, they soon developed several illnesses,
> which are known to be based on food deficiencies. when some of
> them moved back to india, the illnesses disappeared. researchers
> found, that american food is washed and with that washing soil
> and bacteria are removed. they added soil to the food -> the
> illnesses disappeared.
>
> i sure, everyone here has an almost same experience (so this is
> not restricted to cows or goats): suddenly you develop an immense
> desire for a special (and maybe unusual or even strange) kind of
> food. after sport you have a desire for salty food, when ill, you
> dislike meat and so on. consequence: people have something like
> an inner warning system, what is lacking and they try to get out
> of their deficiency. unfortunately this system is beginning to
> disappear in modern society.
>
> > Szent-Gyorgi:
>
> >"One particle, plus one particle, put together at random, are
> >two particles, 1+1=2; the system is additive. But if two
> >particles are put together in a meaningful way then something new
> >is born which is more than their sum: 1+1>2.
>
> exactly. liebig's law: 10 essential minerals out of ten (and one
> totally lacking) do not make 10, they just make : ZERO !!!
>
> in the following mail (a bit long, sorry in advance to those, who
> do not like it) i post a text i think highly interesting.
>
> and this is confirmed by an old (1956) article about the history
> of "soil and nutrition" by prof. albrecht at the "department of
> soil", college of agricult., u. of missouri, columbia/mo, who
> showed, that yields began to decrease in missouri in the 30ies
> down to an uneconomic level. result: farmers imported new fruits,
> which showed higher yields, but with lower nutritional
> value. the plants had higher carbohydrates than before, but
> lower contents of protein with less amino acids. corn breeding
> resulted in more bushels per acre, but 30% less proteins!!! that
> has changed today, but still modern varieties lack some amino
> acids, the old varieties had. (source: 8. sonderheft
> Landwirtschaftliche forschung, pflanzenqualität -
> nahrungsgrundlage,j.d. sauerländer verlag, frankfurt)
>
> same with glucosinolates, which were bred out in rape. today
> medical literature shows, that exactly these ingredients, which
> restrict the amount of rape seed in animal feed, are highly
> effective heart protectants, important for the coronary system
> and pass over to meat and milk..
>
> so what the hell is food quality? (in the end we certainly are
> not interested in soil quality, but in FOOD quality, which is
> nothing more than the result of soil quality...)
>
> we're just working on a test with photon emissions. first results
> show a correlation between feeding tests and photons. these
> photons are mostly the result of total energy received by the
> sun. you doubt ? me too, but nevertheless it's worth a try. btw:
> stanford has its own "bio-photon lab", which just does the same
> tests... but what might be the correlation between photons and
> nutritional value ??????
>
> klaus
>
> To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
> "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
> "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
> To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
> "subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
>
> All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
> http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail

To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".

All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail