RE: sanet-mg-digest V1 #1559

From: Jean-Pierre Zryd (jean-pierre.zryd@lpc.unil.ch)
Date: Sun Jan 23 2000 - 17:04:11 EST

Next message: Hook Family: "Re: Raw Milk"
Previous message: wytze: "Re: Raw Milk"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Eating legumes
Be careful with ALL legumes: do not eat them raw; they should be cooked
carefully, germinated or fermented (tofu); raw soja is toxic as it contains
high level of globulins (alergenic glycoproteins) and protease inhibitors;
you should germinate it or ferment it.
Recent collective food poisoning occured last summer in Switzerland in an
international congress of vegetarians (they had a salad of raw french beans)
In all civilisations cooked or fermented legumes are normally an add to the
normal cereal food diet and not
Best Regards

Jean-Pierre Zrÿd
de son domicile à:
CH 1149 BEROLLE
Tél-Fax: ++4121 8095076
http://www.unil.ch/lpc

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sanet-mg-digest@ces.ncsu.edu
[mailto:owner-sanet-mg-digest@ces.ncsu.edu]
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2000 6:58 PM
To: sanet-mg-digest@ces.ncsu.edu
Subject: sanet-mg-digest V1 #1559

sanet-mg-digest Sunday, January 23 2000 Volume 01 : Number 1559

In this issue:

    Soybeans barely edible?
    Raw milk
    Re: Sally Fallon on B12
    Re: SCIENTISTS PROVE SUPERIOR NUTRITIVE VALUE OF ORGANIC FOOD
    Re: raw milk
    Re: SCIENTISTS PROVE SUPERIOR NUTRITIVE VALUE OF ORGANIC FOOD
    toxins in fat
    RE: Sally Fallon on B12
    Re: Unbalanced Proteins
    Re: soybeans deplete soil?

See the end of the digest for information about sanet-mg-digest.

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

Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 09:30:24 -0800
From: "Hook Family" <guldann@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Soybeans barely edible?

Soybeans, other than tofu barely edible? Explain. We are planting for the
first time the type of soybeans one eats fresh, edamame. I don't expect any
one food to be perfect alone. Wouldn't one consider soy just one food in a
many food diet? Beth
Ronald wrote:
> Also, soy protein is one of the most unbalanced (in terms of the
> proportions of essential amino acids considered ideal for human
> consumption) of any edible protein. In fact, it is barely edible (I
> wouldn't eat it unless it was heavily processed as in tofu).

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

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

Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 09:39:28 -0800
From: "Hook Family" <guldann@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Raw milk

If pesticides accumulate in milk fat I assume it is as a result of what the
cow is eating, how then does the factor of raw milk change this? I would
assume it would matter what the cow eats as oppose to the treatment of the
milk thereafter. My husband grew up drinking raw milk and we are seriously
thinking of getting a family cow in the next few years. So I found this
interesting. Beth

When I asked Ms. Fallon about the toxin load in milk fat - milk, butter,
> and ice cream hold the highest concentrations of pesticides, as toxins
> are locked up in their fat - she dismissed my comment with a blithe
> reference to using raw milk products.
>
> Unfortunately, raw milk products have been made illegal by the
> government (isn't that convenient!) in all but two states: California
> and Oregon, I believe.
>
> What we really need to do is get the government out of our business.
> But that's the topic for another post!
>
> Robert.
>
>
>
> 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

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

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

Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 09:14:48 -0600
From: "Minelle & Joe Paloff" <mpaloff@1starnet.com>
Subject: Re: Sally Fallon on B12

The reason that the government ( of the people, by the people ----us, in
other words) , outlawed the selling of raw milk was because of the
unsanitary practices of some sellers in addition to the great danger of
brucellosis, a high risk disease. People that want the government out of
their business , I have found, usually have something to hide. If a person
wants to drink raw milk from his/her own animals, that is their right, in my
opinion; however, there is some question in my mind as to whether they have
the right to expose their children to the great risk of brucellosis. But
when they want to sell the raw milk to the general public and thus place
others at risk, then society has a right to impose conditions to protect
public health and safety. This is what our government ( the people) tries
to do. Granted, we are not a perfect people, but we do try to protect our
citizens, which is why we have food safety laws.
Minelle Paloff
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Farr" <rbfarr@erols.com>
To: <gcr@rhealiving.com>
Cc: <sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu>
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2000 7:58 AM
Subject: Re: Sally Fallon on B12

> Donna:
>
> When I asked Ms. Fallon about the toxin load in milk fat - milk, butter,
> and ice cream hold the highest concentrations of pesticides, as toxins
> are locked up in their fat - she dismissed my comment with a blithe
> reference to using raw milk products.
>
> Unfortunately, raw milk products have been made illegal by the
> government (isn't that convenient!) in all but two states: California
> and Oregon, I believe.
>
> What we really need to do is get the government out of our business.
> But that's the topic for another post!
>
> Robert.
>
>
>
> 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
>

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

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

Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 10:51:34 -0800
From: Loren Muldowney <loscott@envsci.rutgers.EDU>
Subject: Re: SCIENTISTS PROVE SUPERIOR NUTRITIVE VALUE OF ORGANIC FOOD

There is a persistent story which looks a lot like this post, and since
this post is completely undated and unreferenced, I suspect that this is
yet another incarnation of a much repeated, completely inaccurate
story. There was indeed a study done by Soil Scientist Firman Bear at
Rutgers, many decades ago, comparing minerals in vegetables grown
differently. The final conclusions were basically the rather
unsurprising result that mineral levels are more dependent on soil type
than vegetable type, but because of the differing levels of organic
matter in the soils compared in the study, somebody morphed the story
into "organic" vs. "commercial" and it has been repeated that way ever
since. It's the misinterpreted and misunderstood result that will not
die.

Unless there is good reason to believe (names, dates, publication
reference) that this post is not the 994th reincarnation of the old
F.E. Bear study still being distorted, it would be best NOT to pass it
along. Please bounce this back to the site from which it came. If you
come up with actual references, I would be very interested in seeing
them, but I don't believe that any such study was ever done or indeed
that any research team here at Rutgers has such proof as a research
goal.

One personal addendum: I also do not see much merit in pursuing the
line of inquiry. In particular, in considering the experimental design
necessary to actually demonstrate conclusively such a result, I cannot
imagine being able to isolate a change to just one variable, since many
soil quality variables change together with different management
regimes. If anybody can suggest a workable experimental design which
would put this question to rest if it were done, I would be interested
in your thoughts.

Loren Muldowney
on the Banks of the Old Raritan at
Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ
Dept. of Environmental Sciences

wytze wrote:
> "Jan M.J. Storms" wrote:
> > SCIENTISTS PROVE SUPERIOR NUTRITIVE VALUE OF ORGANIC FOOD
> >
> > Researchers at Rutgers University set-out to disprove the claim that
> > 'Organic Is Better'. They purchased selections of produce at
supermarkets
> > and healthfood stores and analyzed for mineral content. Organic foods
> > were those grown without the use of chemical pesticides or artificial
> > fertilizers. Non-organic foods, referred to here as 'commercial,' were
> > grown with a variety of chemicals that enhance growth or destroy pests,
> > many of which are known or suspected carcinogens (cancer-causing) and
> > which cause greater erosion to the environment and wildlife. The idea
> > that organic crops are nutritionally superior has been accepted largely
> > on faith. There has been very little hard evidence to support this
> > supposition. Rutgers researchers expected the organic produce to be
maybe
> > slightly higher in comparison, but the results were astounding! The
> > amount of iron in the organic spinach was 97% more than the commercial
> > spinach, and the manganese was 99% greater in the organic. Many
essential

- --
Loren Muldowney
loscott@envsci.rutgers.edu

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

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

Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 17:34:09 +0100
From: wytze <geno@zap.a2000.nl>
Subject: Re: raw milk

Hi,
Can you tell me more about this brucellosis? I never heard of it. I did hear
of
a greater risk to catch TBC with raw milk. However, humanity has lived on
raw
milk for thousands of years and I have seen many reports on how raw milk was
used especially in the diets of the most healthy peoples we know in history.
Sanitation and organic quality are definitely very important points with raw
milk, but I am not convinced the problems are caused by the rawness of the
milk.

wytze de lange

Minelle & Joe Paloff wrote:

> The reason that the government ( of the people, by the people ----us, in
> other words) , outlawed the selling of raw milk was because of the
> unsanitary practices of some sellers in addition to the great danger of
> brucellosis, a high risk disease. People that want the government out of
> their business , I have found, usually have something to hide. If a
person
> wants to drink raw milk from his/her own animals, that is their right, in
my
> opinion; however, there is some question in my mind as to whether they
have
> the right to expose their children to the great risk of brucellosis. But
> when they want to sell the raw milk to the general public and thus place
> others at risk, then society has a right to impose conditions to protect
> public health and safety. This is what our government ( the people) tries
> to do. Granted, we are not a perfect people, but we do try to protect our
> citizens, which is why we have food safety laws.
> Minelle Paloff
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert Farr" <rbfarr@erols.com>
> To: <gcr@rhealiving.com>
> Cc: <sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu>
> Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2000 7:58 AM
> Subject: Re: Sally Fallon on B12
>
> > Donna:
> >
> > When I asked Ms. Fallon about the toxin load in milk fat - milk, butter,
> > and ice cream hold the highest concentrations of pesticides, as toxins
> > are locked up in their fat - she dismissed my comment with a blithe
> > reference to using raw milk products.
> >
> > Unfortunately, raw milk products have been made illegal by the
> > government (isn't that convenient!) in all but two states: California
> > and Oregon, I believe.
> >
> > What we really need to do is get the government out of our business.
> > But that's the topic for another post!
> >
> > Robert.
> >
> >
> >
> > 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

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

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

Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 17:41:20 +0100
From: wytze <geno@zap.a2000.nl>
Subject: Re: SCIENTISTS PROVE SUPERIOR NUTRITIVE VALUE OF ORGANIC FOOD

Thank you for the clarification. It could indeed be the 994th resurrection
of an
old story. I had never heard it before. I forwarded questions and comments
to the
person who sent it to me. Apologies for posting too quick.
wytze

Loren Muldowney wrote:

> There is a persistent story which looks a lot like this post, and since
> this post is completely undated and unreferenced, I suspect that this is
> yet another incarnation of a much repeated, completely inaccurate
> story. There was indeed a study done by Soil Scientist Firman Bear at
> Rutgers, many decades ago, comparing minerals in vegetables grown
> differently. The final conclusions were basically the rather
> unsurprising result that mineral levels are more dependent on soil type
> than vegetable type, but because of the differing levels of organic
> matter in the soils compared in the study, somebody morphed the story
> into "organic" vs. "commercial" and it has been repeated that way ever
> since. It's the misinterpreted and misunderstood result that will not
> die.
>
> Unless there is good reason to believe (names, dates, publication
> reference) that this post is not the 994th reincarnation of the old
> F.E. Bear study still being distorted, it would be best NOT to pass it
> along. Please bounce this back to the site from which it came. If you
> come up with actual references, I would be very interested in seeing
> them, but I don't believe that any such study was ever done or indeed
> that any research team here at Rutgers has such proof as a research
> goal.
>
> One personal addendum: I also do not see much merit in pursuing the
> line of inquiry. In particular, in considering the experimental design
> necessary to actually demonstrate conclusively such a result, I cannot
> imagine being able to isolate a change to just one variable, since many
> soil quality variables change together with different management
> regimes. If anybody can suggest a workable experimental design which
> would put this question to rest if it were done, I would be interested
> in your thoughts.
>
> Loren Muldowney
> on the Banks of the Old Raritan at
> Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ
> Dept. of Environmental Sciences
>
> wytze wrote:
> > "Jan M.J. Storms" wrote:
> > > SCIENTISTS PROVE SUPERIOR NUTRITIVE VALUE OF ORGANIC FOOD
> > >
> > > Researchers at Rutgers University set-out to disprove the claim that
> > > 'Organic Is Better'. They purchased selections of produce at
supermarkets
> > > and healthfood stores and analyzed for mineral content. Organic foods
> > > were those grown without the use of chemical pesticides or artificial
> > > fertilizers. Non-organic foods, referred to here as 'commercial,' were
> > > grown with a variety of chemicals that enhance growth or destroy
pests,
> > > many of which are known or suspected carcinogens (cancer-causing) and
> > > which cause greater erosion to the environment and wildlife. The idea
> > > that organic crops are nutritionally superior has been accepted
largely
> > > on faith. There has been very little hard evidence to support this
> > > supposition. Rutgers researchers expected the organic produce to be
maybe
> > > slightly higher in comparison, but the results were astounding! The
> > > amount of iron in the organic spinach was 97% more than the commercial
> > > spinach, and the manganese was 99% greater in the organic. Many
essential
>
> --
> Loren Muldowney
> loscott@envsci.rutgers.edu

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

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

Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 10:11:56 -0600
From: "Donna Fezler" <gcr@rhealiving.com>
Subject: toxins in fat

It is well documented that fat accumulates toxins. I have journal
references back to the 60's on this issue. Dolphins in the St. Lawrence
Seaway have fat so toxic is needs to be treated like hazardous waste. I
cannot see how raw products would have anything to do with the fat load.
Organic products, yes. The raw products may not have altered proteins and
heat-oxidized fats, but the herbicide and pesticide toxins are still there
at the temperature of pasteurization.

The toxin load could, however, affect how saturated fat reacts in the body.
The cholesterol raising response may be a toxin response and not a sat fat
response. It just hasn't been considered. I do know the study that
concluded that coconut oil increased blood cholesterol was done with
hydrogenated coconut oil. With what we now know about hydrogenated fat,
this invalidates the conclusions about coconut oil as the culprit. It needs
to be done over with non-hydrogenated coconut oil to remove the hydrogenated
fat variable.

The toxin load in these animal fats may also be why they are so "fattening."
The toxins that cannot be immediately metabolized have to go somewhere so
they don't poison the body. We keep making adipose to keep it nicely
sequestered and out of trouble. (This is the Darwinian Medicine explanation
of obesity as a survival response and not poor self-control.)

Donna Fezler
GCR
Jacksonville, IL

http://www.rhealiving.com

- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu [mailto:owner-sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu]On
Behalf Of Robert Farr
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2000 7:58 AM
To: gcr@rhealiving.com
Cc: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: Sally Fallon on B12

Donna:

When I asked Ms. Fallon about the toxin load in milk fat - milk, butter,
and ice cream hold the highest concentrations of pesticides, as toxins
are locked up in their fat - she dismissed my comment with a blithe
reference to using raw milk products.

Unfortunately, raw milk products have been made illegal by the
government (isn't that convenient!) in all but two states: California
and Oregon, I believe.

What we really need to do is get the government out of our business.
But that's the topic for another post!

Robert.

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

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

Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 10:42:00 -0600
From: "Donna Fezler" <gcr@rhealiving.com>
Subject: RE: Sally Fallon on B12

"But before I ignore all the "education" we've received over the years,
regarding the deleterious health affects caused by a diet high in red
meat, lard, milk, and butter, I'd like to see some good, clinical
studies, and a whole lotta proof."

Robert, she can't give you proof. There have been no studies that have
considered the effects of toxins in the animal fats as having any effect on
the study results. Totally ignored.

I am in the American Oil Chemists' Society and all their studies ignore the
source of the oil as important. When they do a study on soybean oil it is
assumed immaterial whether it was hexane extracted or cold pressed. We have
30 years of nutritional studies that may well be worthless because impact
of the toxin variable has been ignored.

No one has EVER tested these refined and bleached products against organic
or cold-pressed counterparts. Someone just inquired about the cholesterol
lowering qualities of flax oil. A simple internet search should turn up
numerous references on the health aspects of evening primrose, flax, and
borage oils. These oils sold for supplement use are also cold-pressed and
the original studies were done by companies trying to create a market for
their high quality cold-pressed product. The question remains, is the
effect strictly due to the fatty acid composition or is it also a function
of gentler production methods?

The net result is organic farmers don't have the data to "prove" their
products are better.

This poultry industry is another one that needs to have its products
challenged. Feed performance is commonly tested in animals and never tested
in humans. I have a grocery-store egg study that is similar to the Putzskai
(sp?) potato lectin study. Three years ago I was supplementing my rhea
chicks' diet with infertile rhea eggs. In the fall I ran out of rhea eggs
and used grocery-store chicken eggs. Within 14 days, 50% of the chicks had
developed a common rhea/ostrich chick problem-leg rotations- and had to be
destroyed. There is no treatment for the problem and it can be
devastating. I presented my observations and theory at the national
convention. The following season the other rhea farmers using infertile
rhea eggs as food for the chicks had no leg rotation problems. It is now
routine among ostrich/rhea growers to supplement with infertile ratite eggs
and the problem has been virtually eradicated.

So, in March we are going to raise chickens (they are cheap) with free range
eggs vs. grocery store eggs. We will see what happens with these growth
curves, it could be interesting. Total cost of study: <$200. I also intend
to put the chickens in the freezer at the end of the 12 weeks.

Anyway, we need more of these challenges to establish if there is superior
nutrition in organic or free ranged food.

Donna Fezler
GCR
Jacksonville, IL

http://www.rhealiving.com

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

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

Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 11:48:31 -0600
From: Ronald Nigh <danamex@mail.internet.com.mx>
Subject: Re: Unbalanced Proteins

Dear Mike,
Thank you for drawing our attention to these data. I had only seen figures
on raw oilseed soybeans (part of a study to determine whether they should
be ground and included in an animal feed formula). As I suspected, there
are important changes in the amino acid balance with cooking and processing
into tofu (What is Okara?).

I think your question, though, has to do with how to make sense out of
these figures, which don't seem to say much by themselves. One way of
thinking about protein quality is in terms of the proportions of amino
acids. Egg is considered close to ideal for humans-breast milk is
sometimes used instead and it is very similar. But to think of proportions
means ratios between the numbers. In your table the AA content is expressed
as g/100g of edible portion, i.e. as percentages of the whole food. In the
book "Diet for a Small Planet" (Francis Lappé) the author used a kind of
star graph to represent the proportions of the essential amino acids (the
ones we must get from our food because our bodies cannot synthesize them).
These are the first eight (some say ten) AA listed in your table, from
tryptophan to phenyalanine. The star graphs in Lappé's book represented the
proportion of EAA in the total EAA fraction. This allows one to easily
compare an EAA profile to the 'ideal', presumably egg protein.

For a quick idea, just eyeballing the figures, consider the ratio between
leucine and isoleucine. This is considered problematic; a high
leucine:isoleucine ration can be 'toxic' (e.g. it exacerbates pelagra, the
niacin deficiency associate with diets based on non-lime-treated maize as a
staple grain). Raw soybeans have a high leucine:isoleucine ratio (2.972:
1.770 according to the table, or 1.68:1, compared to eggs at 1.56:1. This
figure is lower than the data I worked with before which were for soybeans
used for oil production and forrage, not for human consumption-the ration
was almost 2:1. Perhaps this is one reason some vareities of soybeans are
preferred by humans) Cooking doesn't help, the ratio remains the same at
1.68, though notice that the numbers (g/100g) change. However, processing
into tofu does make a difference; the ratio drops to 1.53, below that of
eggs.

It's actually interesting to look at the data just for the EAA fraction:

Tofu* Okara Soybeans** Egg ***
NDB No: 16159 16130 16108 16109 1123
Amino acids Raw Cooked
(g) in (100g edible)

Tryptophan 0.162 0.050 0.530 0.242 0.152
Threonine 0.425 0.131 1.585 0.723 0.600
Isoleucine 0.516 0.159 1.770 0.807 0.682
Leucine 0.791 0.244 2.972 1.355 1.067
Lysine 0.685 0.212 2.429 1.108 0.897
Methionine 0.133 0.041 0.492 0.224 0.390
Cystine 0.144 0.044 0.588 0.268 0.290
P.alanine 0.506 0.157 1.905 0.869 0.664
Total EAA 3.362 1.038 12.271 5.596 4.742

The last row gives the total EAA in 100 grams of edible portion. Note that
for eggs, about 4.7% is made of essential amino acids. But raw soybeans
have 12.3% EAA. It would be reasonable to assume that a higher percentage
of EAA means a higher quality protein, right? But, of course, nobody I
know eats raw soybeans. And what do we do when we process soybeans? Cooking
reduces total EAA to around 6% while tofu has 3.4%, less than eggs. One
purpose of processing soybeans seems to be to eliminate most of its
protein. I suspect that the reason for this is that its protein is largely
unedible. Its probably better to eat less of a protein whose EAA
proportions are out of balance.

Judged by this standard (i.e. EAA profile compared to eggs) all other beans
(that I have seen data for) are better than soybeans. I always assumed
this is why no one can convince Mexican farmers (who grow, collectively and
appreciate hundreds of varieties of beans) to eat "the food of the future."

I can't figure out how to do it on the computer, but if you take the last
table and convert the figures to percentages of the column totals, then
draw an eight pointed star with an axis (ray) for each essential amino acid
and locate each value on its axis. Then connect the points, you have a
visual way of comparing EAA fractions of these different foods.

Not eaxactly Nutrition 101, but, I hope, interesting.

PS. Dear Minelle. I don't care for soybeans in any form. Tofu is a fairly
'natural' process (compared to making industrial soy milk or soybean
hotdogs) and I find it edible when well disguised in spciy hot and sour
soup! Most other forms of soybeans make me sick. Which brings up another
aspect, re thryroid problems etc.: soybeans seem to be loaded with
phytohormones and other secondary compounds (a characteristic of legumes in
general) that don't sit well with some folks.

Ronald Nigh
Dana, A.C.
Mexico, D.F. & San Cristóbal de Las Casas, Chiapas
Tel. y FAX 525-666-73-66 (DF)
529-678-72-15 (Chiapas)
danamex@mail.internet.com.mx

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

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

Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 12:00:59 -0600
From: "Laura K. Paine" <lkpaine@facstaff.wisc.edu>
Subject: Re: soybeans deplete soil?

Hi Ronald,

Wow, where did you hear that farmers pour pounds of N fertilizer on soybean
fields? I know of no one who's doing that, or recommending it. Why would
you pay for an input that's provided essentially for free?

You're probably right that soybean is not an efficient N user--it's not
nearly as efficient an N fixer as some other legumes, and it may contribute
to a net drain on organic N stores in the soil. But wouldn't you agree
that its overall effect is beneficial compared to the economically viable
alternatives in a corn based cropping system?

Kindest regards,

Laura

At 06:18 PM 1/22/2000 -0600, you wrote:
>Dear SANET,
>If soybeans provide a net nitrogen fix for the soil, then why do soybean
>farmers pour lbs of N fertilizer on their soybean fields?
>
>An article in Science a few years ago (which I will dig out on Monday when
>I'm back in the office if anyone wants the citation) compared a number of
>the principle legume crops as to efficiency of N use (ie. kg of grain
>produced for kg of N fertilizer applied). Soybeans were by far the least
>efficient N user, by an order of magnitude.
>
>Also, soy protein is one of the most unbalanced (in terms of the
>proportions of essential amino acids considered ideal for human
>consumption) of any edible protein. In fact, it is barely edible (I
>wouldn't eat it unless it was heavily processed as in tofu).
>
>I have no evidence actually showing that soybean production depletes soil
>N, but it seens likely that that occurs under the right circumstances. I
>suspect soybeans have other deleterious effects on the soil, particularly
>in the conditions they are usually grown in conventional agrculture.
>
>Soybeans are still sometimes called the crop of the future and it is
>claimed will feed the world. I always remember the faces of Mexican farmers
>when some city do-gooder tells them that their problems will be solved if
>they just plant soybeans. I seriously doubt it--a much overblown crop.
>
>
>
>
>>Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 12:49:22 -0600
>>From: "Laura K. Paine" <lkpaine@facstaff.wisc.edu>
>>Subject: Re: soybeans deplete soil?
>>
>>Hello Betsy and everyone,
>>
>>I don't know of any data that will support the contention that
conventional
>>soybeans deplete soil nitrogen. Both organic and conventional soybeans,
>>properly innoculated, will fix nitrogen for a net gain in the soil. Most
>>recommendations suggest that you can credit soybeans for about 40 pounds
of
>>N/acre/season of growth.
>>
>>Kindest regards,
>>
>>Laura
>>
>Ronald Nigh
>Dana, A.C.
>Mexico, D.F. & San Cristóbal de Las Casas, Chiapas
>Tel. y FAX 525-666-73-66 (DF)
> 529-678-72-15 (Chiapas)
>danamex@mail.internet.com.mx
>
>
>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
>
Laura Paine
Crops and Soils Agent
Columbia County Agriculture Center
120 West Conant Street
PO Box 567
Portage, WI 53901-0567
608/742-9680
FAX: 608/742-9862
laura.paine@ces.uwex.edu

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

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

End of sanet-mg-digest V1 #1559
*******************************

To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the comannd
"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".

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

Next message: Hook Family: "Re: Raw Milk"
Previous message: wytze: "Re: Raw Milk"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Feb 06 2000 - 12:00:24 EST