If the soil is so depleted then why don't wild animals have all these diseases?

[kurt28]

I got to thinking about food yesterday and how a long time ago they didn't have the means to ship food all around the world. Now days we get food from everywhere. We get food that our ancestors didn't even have access to. They were more limited and had to eat what grew in their area. And yet some how we find ourselves more nutritionally deficient now than ever. Oh, and we probably have more disease too.

When learning about the living raw food diet, I heard that because the earth is so polluted these days that there's less nutrients in the soil. I've heard that you'd have to eat several apples today to get the same nutritional equivalent to one apple in your grandfathers day. I have also heard it said that without some kind of nutritional supplement in your diet that you will have a deficiency no matter how much you eat. And if you look at some of these people who teach the living raw food lifestyle you'll see that even they will advise you to supplement also. Some grow and juice wheatgrass. Some take that Vita-Mineral Green product. And there are a few other products people take that I can't think of right now.

A lot of living raw foodist are also consuming more sea vegetables these days like dulse and kelp. The idea being that they have more minearals in them from the sea that seem to be lacking in our soil. Ann Wigmore is one who teaches that you can get all the nutrients that the body needs. Supposedly her energy soup recipe supplies all the nurtients that the body needs. It does however include some kind of sea vegetable to make that happen.

Maybe it is true that our soil is so depleted of nutrients these days that even with more food choices at hand than our ancestors, we still have to supplement. That could be one plausable explaination for our deficiencies -the depletion of nutrients in the soil. But what gets me is the fact that wild animals are not getting degenerative diseases. If the soil is so depleted than why aren't they having health problems. Their food sources are limited. They eat what's in their area. It's only domesticated animals they say that are getting diseases and that's because of what we feed them. And as studies like the China Study show, it seems to be animal products and animal by-products causing our diseases like heart disease, cancer, and diabetes. I think it was the movie "Forks over Knives" that shows how these diseases can be prevented and even reversed by changing the diet.

So all I'm saying is that maybe it's just the junk that we're eatting that is causing our deficiencies and disease. The abundance of meat and dairy and very few live raw foods like fruits and vegetables. I mean, if the other animals can live just fine off of the limited food they find in their area , then why can't we. If we are suppose to be more important than them, and a higher form of life, shouldn't we be provided for also? It just doesn't make sense. Instead we are told that we have to supplement and get food from other parts of the world.

I am curious to know if there has been any studies done on wild animals to see if they're really deficient or not, and if so, how much. Of course I'm not talking about carnivores. It seems to me that if the soil is really that depleted than wild animals would have to have nutritional deficiencies. And how can they be nutritional defiecent and not have health problems or diseases?

[speltrong]

You should really read "The Rational Optimist" by Ridley. Amazing book and talks a lot about this kind of stuff. Personally, I think very few people these days (especially in America) suffer from nutritional deficiency. People suffer from the overabundance of food (and junk food) being available at their beck & call.

[maggiesdaddy]

You should really read "The Rational Optimist" by Ridley. Amazing book and talks a lot about this kind of stuff. Personally, I think very few people these days (especially in America) suffer from nutritional deficiency. People suffer from the overabundance of food (and junk food) being available at their beck & call.

I have heard that people in America, especially those who are overweight and eating SAD usually have a nutritional deficiency because they choose those convenience foods. They eat processed "food" and get a lot of fats, salts, glucose/sucrose or sucralose and a ton of empty calories instead of nutritionally dense foods.

[speltrong]

I have heard that people in America, especially those who are overweight and eating SAD usually have a nutritional deficiency because they choose those convenience foods. They eat processed "food" and get a lot of fats, salts, glucose/sucrose or sucralose and a ton of empty calories instead of nutritionally dense foods.

You're right about empty calories being a problem. The majority of diseases you see today (in developed countries) are mostly caused by dietary excess, not nutritional deficiencies. I'm just saying, I don't believe the issue at hand has anything to do with soil being deficient.

[maggiesdaddy]

I see. I misunderstood what you said! I think we think the same thing!

[speltrong]

I see. I misunderstood what you said! I think we think the same thing!
LOL, yep, I think so too! :-)

[Dent de Lion]

Well, firstly I'd like to emphasize that you asked about both soil depletion and soil pollution, which are two different things.


Wild animals do often suffer from disease, though to my knowledge its extremely infrequently due to nutritional deficiencies. Keep in mind that animals that begin to become sick--for any reason-- die quickly. So regardless, it's rare to see a sick or even old wild animal. Animals getting sick from pollutants, especially pesticides, is actually extremely common. For example, remember the hub-bub over bald eagles and DDT?

Also, the soil that people talk about when they discuss soil depletion is that of farmlands. Though animals will eat people's crops if they can get them, they eat mostly wild-grown food.

[kurt28]

Dent de lion said, "the soil that people talk about when they discuss soil depletion is that of farmlands".

I'm glad you pointed that out. I didn't realize they were only talking about farm lands. But, if that's the case and the problem is just that we're planting over and over in the same spot, then why don't people just plant in different spots every few years. I realize people rotate their crops, but why not just up and move them to a different spot every so often. After all even when you compost it is recommended that you throw it all out every few years for some new fresh top soil.

Then on the other hand it doesn't makes sense that that could be the problem when plants in the wild grow back in the same spots over and over without getting depleted of nutrients.

Unless the problem isn't that we're growing over and over in the same spots, but how we are growing them. With the help of pesticides and junk. Maybe that has something to do with the soil getting depleted. Just a thought. I have no idea.

[Dent de Lion]

Why don't people just plant in different spots? Because farmers can't just buy new land all the time. Much of the land that is appropriate for farming is being used for farming already, and clearing new land for farming only causes more issues (like clearing the rainforest out to plant coffee.) The meat and dairy industries have a lot of the blame, since cattle consume so many resources (grazing land, feed that comes from corn & grain that also requires farmland space) and so does growing the same crops in the same place all the time. (Since the same plants deplete the same things over and over again.) Crop rotation helps a lot, and so does composting etc.

The bottom line is that it's more financially savvy for farmers to farm in ways that deplete the soil. And farming is a business.

[speltrong]

Well, when you talk about wild forests, different things grow there and replenish the soil as they grow and then die. With farming, you run into issues like monoculture (only growing one kind of plant repeatedly). The soil gets depleted unless chemicals are used to replenish it so new crops can grow. The Omnivore's Dilemma is also a very good book that talks about this stuff in great detail. :-)

[Arky]

The classic text on this topic is G.T. Wrench's 'Wheel of Health'

You can buy it in paperback for peanuts:

http://www.amazon.com/Wheel-Health-Sources-Among-Hunza/dp/0486451542/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1316652385&sr=8-1

(I have my copy literally within arms reach as I'm typing this!) or you can read it online, here:

http://journeytoforever.org/farm_library/Wrench_WoH/WoHToC.html
(http://journeytoforever.org/farm_library/Wrench_WoH/WoHToC.html)
(the above website is an absolute goldmine of information on these topics), and if you want a goldmine of purchasable physical books on these topics, acresUSA.com is the place to go.


People so seldom read the original classic literature on health and nutrition these days...



As speltrong mentioned, it's largely because the farmers don't put back what they took out; instead, they just add NPK fertiliser, made by the petrochemical industry. No trace minerals. Companies like OceanGrown are attempting to reverse this trend to some degree by making purified seawater solutions commercially available to farmers and home growers, based upon the pioneering work of people like Maynard Murray:

http://www.acresusa.com/toolbox/reprints/Murray_Trace Elements.pdf

But trace elements are only a fraction of the story (albeit a very important fraction) - there is a vastly complex natural 'ecosystem' of bacteria, bugs, worms, fungi etc. which, in healthy soil, work in harmony to improve the health of plants, and the uptake of nutrients by the root systems of plants. It's quite glorious when you read up on it.

In pesticide sprayed, petrochemical-fertilised, mineral-poor, over-farmed soils, the whole ecosystem is damaged, which means plants don't grow as healthily and require MORE pesticides in order to survive their weakened state, which means the cycle continues to get worse and worse and worse, with the soil, the plants, and mankind all suffering, to say nothing of the wild animals who become intoxicated with the run-off from such irresponsible and short-sighted farming practices. Truly, modern farming is a triumph of utter stupidity and short-sightedness over nature and reason, and we and successive generations will pay a terrible price for it.

The best way around it is for each person to grow their own 'victory garden', but not everyone is willing or able to undertake the task;

C'est la vie...

[speltrong]

I must respectfully disagree with the sentiment that modern farming is utterly stupid. Modern farming is the reason that people can live in large cities and thrive. Modern farming has the potential to stop entire nations from starving. Without modern farming, there would probably be no other way to support a worldwide growing population long term. That said, I personally prefer to mostly put sustainably grown local produce in my own body, but that is something I think we have the luxury of doing in wealthy countries. For that I am grateful (especially after traveling to 3rd world countries). It is very nice to have the choice of what we want to put in our bodies, but when considering what is best for the masses and what is sustainable long term for the majority of people, I think it is important to give due respect to something as world changing as modern farming. End rant. :-)

[MysticTree]

I must respectfully disagree with the sentiment that modern farming is utterly stupid. Modern farming is the reason that people can live in large cities and thrive. Modern farming has the potential to stop entire nations from starving. Without modern farming, there would probably be no other way to support a worldwide growing population long term. That said, I personally prefer to mostly put sustainably grown local produce in my own body, but that is something I think we have the luxury of doing in wealthy countries. For that I am grateful (especially after traveling to 3rd world countries). It is very nice to have the choice of what we want to put in our bodies, but when considering what is best for the masses and what is sustainable long term for the majority of people, I think it is important to give due respect to something as world changing as modern farming. End rant. :-)

absolutely ... there is a reason we gave up foraging and adopted agriculture. I teach foraging skills to many people but I always say that planting a fruit/veg garden is still very important. More important in many ways :)

[Raw Angel Mom]

Yes the depletion of the soil is farm land only. Wild animal are fine if they leave far away from the town. According to Victoria Butenko, the one near town were found with parasite in them.

They eat fresh too, our food in the market could have been 10 days old or more. Pesticide are terrible for the soil. I know if someone use sea vegetable in their garden, they will have a rich garden. The father of a friend of mind did that, he had fantastic result.

I personally feel that the more people go vegan, the more food it would be for others. Some country they plant corn in foreign land to feed the cows while children are starving in these places. Some amazon forest are chop up to plant corn as well to feed the cows. Dairy farm should be converted to a fruit farm or produce farm instead. Every Country could provide for their own food without having to import this much. We have the technology to grow food in winter now (green house). Anyway, just a thought

[Arky]

I must respectfully disagree with the sentiment that modern farming is utterly stupid.


Hands up (mine, I mean). Yes, I agree with you; I did overstate my sentiments last night. I was very tired (it was close to 2 am when I typed that response).

I admit that I was being hypocritical in making such a sweeping statement, and I should have taken the time to qualify it properly rather than leave it as-was; guilty as charged, and I apologise.


What I meant to say is that modern farming's over-reliance upon petrochemically-derived fertilisers and over-use of the soil is irresponsible and unsustainable, and future generations are going to suffer greatly because of it. In that sense, I view modern farming as 'stupid' / short-sighted.

In other respects, as you've quite rightly pointed out, modern farming has much to offer and does, indeed, support those of us who live in cities and have no time, land, inclination or whatever to do our own growing.

The point is that the 'stupidity' I refer to is unnecessary, and does mankind, and the farming industry itself, a huge disservice. It needlessly undermines all the positive aspects of modern farming technology, but the likes of Monsanto, who appear to be attempting to force the world's farmers to rely upon proprietary genetically-modified seed, proprietary petrochemically-derived fertilisers, and proprietary petrochemically-derived pesticides are making it harder and harder for the farming industry to turn back and return to the roots of traditional farming practices that respect, and work synergistically with, the soil. Monsanto have long been publicly known to be buying up seed banks in order to destroy them and leave only their proprietary genetically-modified seed available on the world market. Is that a crime against humanity? Some would say so. Also see:

http://archive.truthout.org/wikileaks-us-ambassador-planned-retaliation-against-france-over-ban-monsanto-corn66131

Modern farming could be so much better if it respected soil ecology rather than insisting on raping the soil by using unsustainable shortcuts, but what I should have acknowledged last night, and am doing now, is that the farming industry does have positive aspects and, with regard to the negative aspects, does not currently operate independently - it is a cog in a larger mechanism, dominated by global commercial interests.