Use of the word "Wild"

[johnalison]

Thats a lie.

It would help if you could elaborate on this. I am aware of tests showing that the nutritional value, ie the concentrations of certain useful content, of many common foods are now at about a third of the level of what they were seventy years ago or so. I imagine that this is the result of various factors including more intense cultivation, newer cultivars and maybe more irrigation. It is also likely that current 'organic' farming and horticulture is probably closer to the old ways and that their food may well have a better nutritional value. Unfortunately, I can't quite accept the 'all chemicals are bad' philosophy that goes with it, or the idea that in buying into it I am joining the New Agers.

 

[Lon nan Gruagach]

It would help if you could elaborate on this. I am aware of tests showing that the nutritional value, ie the concentrations of certain useful content, of many common foods are now at about a third of the level of what they were seventy years ago or so. I imagine that this is the result of various factors including more intense cultivation, newer cultivars and maybe more irrigation. It is also likely that current 'organic' farming and horticulture is probably closer to the old ways and that their food may well have a better nutritional value. Unfortunately, I can't quite accept the 'all chemicals are bad' philosophy that goes with it, or the idea that in buying into it I am joining the New Agers.

A ferinstance...

Cholesterol in eggs.
Contemporary lie: The cholesterol levels found in contemporarily farmed eggs are the same as found in free range organic eggs.
The truth: While there may be the same overall level of cholesterol, the type found in modern eggs is the sort that kills you by clogging arteries, whereas the cholesterol found in free range organic eggs is the stuff your body makes (in huge quantities [equivalent to 7 eggs a day]) in order to heal and grow.


So, there ya go, just one of many examples of properly scientifically tested proofs that organic food is better nutritionally than the contemporary counterparts.



BTW if you want to turn good cholesterol into bad cholesterol then simply oxidise it. Scrambled eggs are not so good.

 

[JumbleDuck]

Thats a lie.

It would be conventional to back up that assertion with some evidence. So please, go on, show me a reputable scientific study showing any significant difference between "organic" food as certified by the Soil Association and the other sort. Oh, and while you're at it, could you explain why the overwhelming majority of the population who do not eat "organic" food are healthier and living longer than at any time before?

Round here organic is practically mainstream. The real woo merchants here are the biodynamic ones who believe in planting a gemshorn full of mixed iron filings and cow pee at the full moon ( I wish I was making this up) and then sprinkling a dilution of it on the fields twelve months later. It's all based on the loonier end of Rudolf Steiner's writings.

I often buy organic, because I like the reduced dependence on oil-derived energy. I do not, however, for one instant kid myself that it does my health a blind bit of good.

 

[JumbleDuck]

Contemporary lie: The cholesterol levels found in contemporarily farmed eggs are the same as found in free range organic eggs. The truth: While there may be the same overall level of cholesterol, the type found in modern eggs is the sort that kills you by clogging arteries, whereas the cholesterol found in free range organic eggs is the stuff your body makes (in huge quantities [equivalent to 7 eggs a day]) in order to heal and grow.

An interesting assertion, but one for which I can find no published justification. Can you link to a paper? Meanwhile:

 

[FlyingGoose]

It would be conventional to back up that assertion with some evidence. So please, go on, show me a reputable scientific study showing any significant difference between "organic" food as certified by the Soil Association and the other sort. Oh, and while you're at it, could you explain why the overwhelming majority of the population who do not eat "organic" food are healthier and living longer than at any time before?

Round here organic is practically mainstream. The real woo merchants here are the biodynamic ones who believe in planting a gemshorn full of mixed iron filings and cow pee at the full moon ( I wish I was making this up) and then sprinkling a dilution of it on the fields twelve months later. It's all based on the loonier end of Rudolf Steiner's writings.

I often buy organic, because I like the reduced dependence on oil-derived energy. I do not, however, for one instant kid myself that it does my health a blind bit of good.

Eatting organic food is also a lifestyle choice to help protect he enviroment on needs to take into consideration the amount put into inorganic pesticides, fertilisers and chemical compunds not found on the land in those qauntities
Once nitrogen fertilizers are applied to agricultural systems, the fertilizers are absorbed directly by plants or converted into various other forms through the oxidation process. Excess nitrogen is lost in ionic or gaseous form through leaching, volatilization, and denitrification . If nitrate is not absorbed by plant roots, it is carried away by runoff or leaches into the soil along with water The phytoavailability of the nitrogen pool increases when excess nitrogen is applied, and this increase intensifies the potential threat to the surrounding environment There are close relationships between the excessive application of nitrogen fertilizers and environmental problems such as eutrophication, the greenhouse effect, and acid rain
But what do they know and the bees , the dead fish , the river Dolphins in the Yatzee , and we think that yes this is a good think to eat as well , I would rather buy organic that provides a certain level of protection from such

 

[JumbleDuck]

Eatting organic food is also a lifestyle choice to help protect he enviroment on needs to take into consideration the amount put into inorganic pesticides, fertilisers and chemical compunds not found on the land in those qauntities ... There are close relationships between the excessive application of nitrogen fertilizers and environmental problems such as eutrophication, the greenhouse effect, and acid rain

Of course. The downsides are the greater land requirement for organic and organic farmers are free to chuck on as much guano as they want. The dead dolphins don't know where the nitrates come from.

 

[FlyingGoose]

Of course. The downsides are the greater land requirement for organic and organic farmers are free to chuck on as much guano as they want. The dead dolphins don't know where the nitrates come from.

Tried to explain early there are organic and inorganic compounds of the same chemical i.e Nitrogen , Carbon, Oxygen etc
In chemistry, organic means that a molecule has a carbon backbone with some hydrogen thrown in for good measure.Living creatures are made of various kinds of organic compounds. Inorganic molecules are composed of other elements. They can contain hydrogen or carbon, but if they have both,they are organic.

​Hence the diffrence between organic inorganic

 

[mel80]

Tried to explain early there are organic and inorganic compounds of the same chemical i.e Nitrogen , Carbon, Oxygen etc

In chemistry, organic means that a molecule has a carbon backbone with some hydrogen thrown in for good measure.Living creatures are made of various kinds of organic compounds. Inorganic molecules are composed of other elements. They can contain hydrogen or carbon, but if they have both,they are or

All Nitrogen assimilation by plants require inorganic Nitrogen compounds. Whether you apply 'organic' fertiliser or 'synthetic' fertiliser, you are raising the levels of inorganic nitrogen in the soil, along with all the attendant risks from runoff, eutrophication etc.

Managing the environmental risk is about when you time your applications, where you apply and what the application levels are. It is perfectly possible to trash a watercourse using nothing but manure applications. It is a good example of the dangers of ideological thinking. i.e. "organic farming is safe but conventional farming is dangerous". In reality it is a bit more complicated than that; lowering the environmental risks of farming require considerable thought regardless of how you source your inputs.

 

[Daydream believer]

Tell me this. If we all relied on the Organic food" would there be enough to go round?
if not then the organic stuff would not be so good would it?
so the case that stuff put in "non organic" food to produce the large quantities does us harm must be bollox, because without it we would all be starving to death any way. It is actually keeping us alive- is it not
i will have another burger please������

 

[FlyingGoose]

All Nitrogen assimilation by plants require inorganic Nitrogen compounds. Whether you apply 'organic' fertiliser or 'synthetic' fertiliser, you are raising the levels of inorganic nitrogen in the soil, along with all the attendant risks from runoff, eutrophication etc.

Managing the environmental risk is about when you time your applications, where you apply and what the application levels are. It is perfectly possible to trash a watercourse using nothing but manure applications. It is a good example of the dangers of ideological thinking. i.e. "organic farming is safe but conventional farming is dangerous". In reality it is a bit more complicated than that; lowering the environmental risks of farming require considerable thought regardless of how you source your inputs.

Autotrophic creatures use inogranic Nitrogen to produce organic nitrogen , with Carbon and Oxygen
itis not as simple as saying plants require inorganic nitrogen
Once in the soils and surface waters, nitrogen from the air undergoes a set of changes: its two nitrogen atoms separate and combine with hydrogen to form ammonia (NH4+)
But I understand were you are coming from in the expalnation I think I jus got t going round in circles , putting parts into play that need a bigger explanation
I Studied Organic Chemistry:disgust: , then left for Hotels and now back working with trees , got the old brain cells working again

 

[johnalison]

Tell me this. If we all relied on the Organic food" would there be enough to go round?
if not then the organic stuff would not be so good would it?
so the case that stuff put in "non organic" food to produce the large quantities does us harm must be bollox, because without it we would all be starving to death any way. It is actually keeping us alive- is it not
i will have another burger please������

That's an interesting point. It might be that the larger number of people demanding organic food leads to a larger area of land being less productive, and thus putting more pressure on the remaining land to increase its output with unsatisfactory results.

For myself, I don't much mind where my food comes from, but I do care about the environment and what I would like to see is a greater emphasis on sustainable farming. The fact that this has become confused with the organic argument is unhelpful. At the moment we seem to be using our land in the spirit of slash and burn, and I would like to think that those in a position to do something about it are working to put things right.

 

[Hydrozoan]

At this point, it is perhaps worth noting the use of 'wild' as a verb; Mrs H is reading this at the moment: https://www.panmacmillan.com/authors/isabella-tree/wilding/9781509805099

 

[claymore]

Would wild as in wild swimming, camping, cruising, sex and other such issues not be a pro-verb then?

 

[Lon nan Gruagach]

It would be conventional to back up that assertion with some evidence.

An interesting assertion, but one for which I can find no published justification. Can you link to a paper? Meanwhile:

Whats the point, you didnt read it anyway.

 

[JumbleDuck]

Tried to explain early there are organic and inorganic compounds of the same chemical i.e Nitrogen , Carbon, Oxygen etc

I know that. Still doesn't make an NO₃⁺ derived from guano any better - or worse - than one derived from a Chilean mine.

 

[JumbleDuck]

Whats the point, you didnt read it anyway.

I read it in detail. I can find no justification for your assertion that the cholesterol in organic eggs is (a) different from or (b) better for us than the chloresterol in battery eggs. Which I never, ever buy, by the way. What I did find was evidence against your claim that cholesterol from eggs is a health hazard anyway.

Just as a matter of interest - and I have a feeling I know the answer - how do you feel about vaccination?

 

[Lon nan Gruagach]

It would be conventional to back up that assertion with some evidence. So please, go on, show me a reputable scientific study showing any significant difference between "organic" food as certified by the Soil Association and the other sort. Oh, and while you're at it, could you explain why the overwhelming majority of the population who do not eat "organic" food are healthier and living longer than at any time before?

Round here organic is practically mainstream. The real woo merchants here are the biodynamic ones who believe in planting a gemshorn full of mixed iron filings and cow pee at the full moon ( I wish I was making this up) and then sprinkling a dilution of it on the fields twelve months later. It's all based on the loonier end of Rudolf Steiner's writings.

I often buy organic, because I like the reduced dependence on oil-derived energy. I do not, however, for one instant kid myself that it does my health a blind bit of good.

I read it in detail. I can find no justification for your assertion that the cholesterol in organic eggs is (a) different from or (b) better for us than the chloresterol in battery eggs. Which I never, ever buy, by the way. What I did find was evidence against your claim that cholesterol from eggs is a health hazard anyway.

Just as a matter of interest - and I have a feeling I know the answer - how do you feel about vaccination?

Your body makes about 7 eggs worth of cholesterol per day. Eating cholesterol simply gives your body a break (its a feedback thing) so, unless you eat a (chicken)shed load of eggs per day you wont see any change in blood cholesterol levels.. You produce HDL (good cholesterol) which, apart from many other vital functions (including healing and growth) will attach to LDL (bad cholesterol) and escort it to the liver for disposal.
One way to convert HDL to LDL is to oxidise it. If you eat LDL it will exacerbate artery clogging cholesterol build up instead of being an external source of HDL.

As it turns out, free range eggs (yeah yeah, its the hens that are free range) are significantly better for you than those from caged birds. Scroll down about half way through https://www.freeranger.com.au/myths-about-eggs.html
Non organic free range is still pretty shoddy compared to organic free range so there are even more benefits to organic eggs.

What I feel about vaccination is governed by what I know. That is that vaccination will protect the herd at the expense of increasing individual strength through natural selection.


Aaaand, just for the icing on the cake: Did someone mention biodynamics?......

First please watch at least a few seconds of this video and answer: can you see the wind?

For those that say "no": you know bloody well what I (and the rest of the population) mean!
For those that say "yes": you mean you can see a metaphysical property of an invisible element? Yeah, you got some real spirituality in you...
What you can see is such a strong effect it is as if you can see whats causing it, much like a table saw cut, you cant see the teeth, but you sure can see (and use) their effect.

Biodynamics is a system of (sustainable) agriculture first proposed by Rudolph Steiner. He claimed to be able to see astronomical and terrestrial spirits which interact in our surface of the earth realm. My guess is that he was an all time super-league green fingered gardener. His affinity with the living realm so strong that he could recognise the effects of subtle natural phenomena.

A ferinstance:
The biodynamic planting calendar, governed by the constellation that the moon is in at any given time.
Woo or true?
Aside from many many peoples best effort to study this, all coming to the same conclusion that its true, lets see if there might be some science...
Similar to sea tides, there are also land tides (and whaddya know, they change with the location of the moon). So, you place a delicate capillary organism in such an environment, which would fare better, one that goes with the flow, or one that stubbornly ignores it? You got it, the one that is responsive to the state of the moon.

 

[Aja]

As a boy I swam in rivers, lakes and lochs
When asked what I was up to, my reply would be 'going swimming'
My Neice refers to this now as 'Wild Swimming'

As a youth I camped by rivers lakes and lochs
when asked what I was up to, my reply would be 'going camping'
My nephew refers to this now as 'Wild Camping'

I've sailed by Scottish shores for the past 40 odd years and anchored where we fancied.
Leo Stocker, the illustrious editor of YM now seems to be insisting that this is known as 'Wild Cruising'

FFS

See what you've started?

 

[alan_d]

Slightly left field , but there is a wealth of Evidence showing that carcinogenic elements consumed by the Human body can cause cells to become cancerous

Since the word "carcinogenic" means cancer-producing, the truth of this statement can be confirmed by reference to a dictionary without recourse to other evidence. Proven human carcinogens include substances derived from both organic and non-organic sources.

 

[Greenheart]

When I was a lad we had an outside lavatory.

Was that wild shitting, then? I never knew.