Peter Brandt wrote:

> I doubt you would make this [Brix matters] argument in regards to a
> cow...

But Peter, this is exactly where I make the argument.  Go out and pull
grasses from various pastures belonging to various farmers.  Squeeze a bit
of juice in each location and record the Brix result.  Put the piece of
paper in your pocket.

Get a witness and take them along when you go back and interview the
farmers.  The interviews can be very specific (how high are your vet bills;
do you artificially inseminate; what is the average age of your culled
cows) or just questions in general that might reflect herd health (and
production).

Peter, I've been involved with such surveys enough to know the poor
responses will match with poor Brix values and the good responses will be
reserved for high Brix pastures.  When you extend all this to understanding
that high Brix grasses grow on highly mineralized soils, and vice versa, a
lot starts becoming clearer.

Brix is nothing I've dreamed up.  If anyone here is annoyed with Brix, they
can take it up with an organization like the Florida Department of
Agriculture, who conducts tens of thousands of Brix evaluations every
year.  Those people full well know that they can't evaluate quality without
that Brix factor.

I'm sure that you've heard my beef that they have the acceptable figure set
too low for citrus.  Poor quality citrus is so acid that, IMHO, it can harm
you.  For instance, the Florida authorities sometimes get aggressive with
backyard growers who try to sell too much untested fruit from their
driveways.  Sure, the sellers bellow "sweet," but the bureaucrats know the
fruit is all too often toxic.  Yankees returning home with tales of "Yeah,
I bought some oranges from a guy down the street but they upset my stomach"
cause problems with the industry as a whole.


> ...so I am curious if not what you are saying is that you believe
> that humans are ecletic omnivores who can thrive on a great range of
> diets so long as the foods eaten are of a high brix quality?

I'd like to think I haven't espoused any particular diet.  Mainly, I've
tried to simply say: "You guys say 'this' works or 'that' won't, but how
can you be sure if you don't factor the quality in?"  However, I will go on
record as saying that I think (suspect) that one can safely minimize the
variety of their diet IF they make sure the quality is superb.  If that
causes you or others anguish because it can be twisted by some wacko
fruitarian, I'm sorry.


> If this is your position are there any diets that you would regard as
> exceptions to this rule (such as an all snail and spinach diet or an all
> leaf and organ diet) and if yes, what criteria these evaluations are
> based on.

Sorry Peter, but I don't have any dietary ideas---I'm a student here.
OTOH, I'd like to express my appreciation for all that you guys have taught
me about raw---a good thing.  Perhaps a few of the readers will recognize
my student status and quit getting so pissed when I say, "But professor,
what about the quality?"

BTW, I'd also like to make contact with an Instincto in the Washington, DC
area.  I want to do an experiment to see if the famous 'stop' on any
particular fruit or veggie will disappear if I trot out a higher Brix item
of the same produce.

This Instincto stuff is fascinating.  It reminds me of an on-farm
experiment of some years ago.  A farmer was trying to determine which of
several competing mineral-based soil-amendments to buy.  He used some of
one material here and some of another there.  At the end of season he
shucked the corn, put various piles of the 'different' corns in a pen, and
turned the hogs loose.

Yeah, he had a video camera (sorry, but all farmers aren't technologically
backwards).  He filmed the hogs and piles every day.  First, one pile
disappeared.  Then another went away.  Each pile was eaten until it was
gone until, finally, the pile of corn from a field that received NO
treatment was left.  I'm sure I'll still catch hell if I say, IMO, the hogs
'grudgingly' ate that last pile.  Anyway, the farmer showed the video and
added, "I know which supplement *I* bought."

Sure, there are as many questions here as answers.  One troubling point, at
least to me, is that grains tend to fatten animals.  Was the 'better' corn
simply more addictive?  Whatever the answer to that, I can tell you that
other farmers mineralize only a portion of a pasture (as an experiment) and
routinely report the cows will stay in the treated portion until the grass
is completely gone.  They will then move to the untreated portion.

No Peter, I do not know the answers.  I'm a student.  I use a refractometer
because it helps me visually see what my degenerated sniffer and taster
aren't so good at.  Quality does matter and its a handy tool to help me get
my share of the good stuff.

Regards,
Rex Harrill
BTW: the 'macro nutrients' (calcium, magnesium, phosphorous, potassium,
and, according to some, sodium) need to be in a particular 'balance' for
best (think healthiest) vegetative growth.  That balance, reflected in the
plant, seems to be best (think healthiest) for the animals eating thereof.

Even as the listproc here sends out the next few messages, feed labs around
the country are *testing* feed samples from various farms.  Even as the
posts on this list are being debated, farmers and their feed consultants
are comparing actual test results to various mineral interrelation charts
to see where they are getting too little AND too much of various macro &
micro nutrients.  I insist that trying to understand human nutrition
without understanding animal nutrition is fruitless.  (A pun, guys, a pun)