Priority One: Nutrition

July 2006
By Dr Arden Andersen, May 2006

Diseases of the elderly continue to be visited upon younger and younger people.
The generation being born today, for the first time in American history, is predicted to
have a shorter life expectancy than their parents.

Many people want to believe that it is medical technology that has given the current
senior generation the longer life expectancy than the previous generations. The
reality is that it has been sanitation, safety, and modern shelter that has accounted
for the gains in life expectancy.

The current generation's problem is not genetic. It is the lack of nutrition. Nutrition is
the building block of every body, organ, tissue and cell. It is the foundation of the
immune and repair system. It is the essence of our physical life.

Unfortunately, the nutritional status of the world, especially the developed world,
continues to decline as conventional medical and agricultural technologies gain an
even greater stranglehold around the world.

An ABC News article by Megan Carpenter, March 1, 2006 discusses a study done by
Donald Davis at the University of Texas at Austin. Davis found that USDA data
proves what several other studies and I have repeatedly stated before, that fruits and
vegetables are significantly less nutritious than in past decades.

Heart disease, stroke, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, diabetes, obesity and cancer are
more prevalent than ever and increasing every year. Children are the age group with
the fastest increase in cancer rate. There are literally thousands of scientific journal
articles linking all these diseases to nutrition.

Nutrition is the absolute core issue regarding disease, birth defects, life expectance
and quality of life. Nutrition is Priority ONE!

I recently had the pleasure of reading Allan Yeoman's book Priority One: Together
We Can Beat Global Warming. His premise is that all the hoopla regarding global
warming is even more serious than suggested due to the increase in carbon dioxide
concentration in the atmosphere.

This marked increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is causing ecosystem
alterations on the surface of the earth and dramatic change in the flow of the ocean
currents, which in turn, is causing significant change in our global climate.

He predicts major global disaster for all living species on the planet if the current
trend continues, perhaps for just as little as another 10 years or so. His conclusion is
that only agriculture can reverse this date with disaster by capturing the atmospheric
carbon dioxide and storing it in the soil as organic matter and humus.

Global weather changes are, indeed, a concern and agriculture really is best suited
to correct this problem. I contend however, that Priority One is a focus on nutrition,
from soil to human. Get the soil nutrition right and the transformation of carbon
dioxide to humus will occur as a matter of course.

In fact, getting the soil nutrition right corrects a long list of problems associated with
agriculture and industrial development including environmental integrity, food safety
and human health, chemical pesticide poisoning and, insect pests, diseases and
weeds.
Whether we are discussing people and animal health, soil health, erosion,
atmospheric carbon dioxide, economic viability, pesticide and drug use and pollution,
or microorganism selection and presence, it all comes back to nutrition. Nutrition is
the core.

It is easy to get side tracked into debates about products, tillage approaches, tree
planting, animal rights, and so forth. For some, this is an intentional effort to divert
attention away from the real solutions to all these problems, that being nutritional
balance. Get the nutrition right in the soil and all, literally all, these details resolve in
the natural course of re-establishing soil balance.

Ultimate nutrient balancing begins with looking at the soil nutrient status. Just as in
business we look at our capital reserve and our cash flow when evaluating our
business health, I look at the capital reserve and cash flow nutrient status in the soil.
To do this I use two systems of soil testing: the Albrecht or Cation Exchange
Capacity system and the Reams system or water-soluble testing system.

William Albrecht was a trailblazer in soil science in the 1940s linking animal health
and production directly to soil health and nutrition. He arrived at a model of soil
nutrient ratios using the cation exchange capacity of the soil and the percentage
each major cation occupied in the whole of that CEC.

He found that calcium should occupy 65 to 80 percent of the base saturation,
magnesium 10 to 15 percent, potassium two to five percent and then hydrogen,
sodium and trace elements would make up the remaining portion to total 100
percent. His system worked well in the context in which he researched it; Missouri
soils in the 1940s with the common assumption that manure would be used on most
soils because the farms were predominantly mixed farms.

Out of Albrecht's work came, most notably, the Brookside system. Albrecht and
Brookside's approach were certainly reasonable and there are some very important
concepts to be learned from Albrecht.

In fact I recall that in the early 1970s, Brookside testing was a step my father took
away from the County Extension Service model, knowing he had to make positive
changes in his soil nutrition. For additional specifics on Albrecht's work, I suggest
reading the Albrecht Papers.

Just as Einstein's theory of relativity was ground breaking in the 1920s, Albrecht's
concepts were equally groundbreaking for his time. However, just as Nicola Tesla's
understanding and principles of physics and free energy dwarfed Einstein's E=mc2,
Reams' understandings of nutrition, cause and effect, biochemistry and energy were
a natural advancement beyond Albrecht's approaches to plant production.

Many people are totally unaware of Tesla and his advancements in physics and
modern technology, and likewise are totally unaware of Carey Reams and his
concepts of soil and plant nutrition. As I view Albrecht's testing approach akin to
doing a capital reserve assessment and Reams' akin to doing a cash flow
assessment. Both are very important to evaluating one's business, yet in reality
neither guarantees success of the business.

Dr Reams realised that perfect Albrecht numbers did not necessarily equate to yield,
brix readings and nutrient density or, subsequently, to reduction / elimination of
disease, weed and insect pest infestation. Reams recognised that capital assets did
not equal cash flow. More importantly he recognized that cash flow did not always
translate to the desired outcome. He recognised what Dr Elaine Ingham has so
elegantly taught around the world, that biology was the intimate link between nutrient
capital reserve, nutrient cash flow and final outcome.

Many students of Albrecht and Reams fail to recognise that both gentlemen did
integrate biology into their programmes. Both had animal manure in their programs.
However it was manure before the wholesale use of antibiotics, growth hormones,
insecticides, fungicides, herbicides, genetically engineered Franken-feeds, salt
fertilisers, and no-till.

Manures at that time were actually microbiological inoculants. Reams was a
visionary with an advantage over Albrecht. Reams also treated people and
developed nutritional programmes to help patients recover from severe diseases.

In this context, he developed a deeper understanding, as did Dr. Charles Northern, of
the importance of the nutrient density of plants for human health. He saw that the
typical soil test numbers and practices did not routinely result in high nutrient density
in food nor subsequently, to the ill consumer recovering.

Reams recognised the important role microbiology plays in the digestive system of
the soil as well as in humans and animals. He used plant "medicinals" as much as he
could, but later in his life he recognised the importance of higher therapeutic levels of
nutrition delivered via supplements or intravenously in order to get the healing
response from ill consumers.

This is where we must recognise that though there may be a lot of capital nutrient
asset already in the soil and that microbiology may potentially be able to convert that
capital soil asset to cash crop production, the natural liquidation process may take
more time than we have.

As such, we need immediate cash flow to get results so we will add ‘cash'
amendments to the soil in the form of minerals just as a farmer may go to the bank

for a short-term operating capital loan even though he has plenty of reserve funds in
the bank. It is about timing, desired outcome, logistics, and management decisions.
Recently an article from Australia in the Goondiwindi Grains Research Update 2006,
28th Feb - 1st March 2006, entitled "Cation Balance, Lime, Rock Dust and other
Amendments" by Neal Menzies, School of Land and Food Sciences, University of
Queensland, lambasted the Albrecht model of ideal base saturation percentages for
calcium, magnesium, potassium, etc.

Mr Menzies states that from a review of the literature and ag research done in
Australia, it can be concluded that crop production is not correlated to any set ideal
base saturation percent or ratio. Reading through his article, I could not find
significant fault with his conclusions, which are what Reams also concluded, and
what Dan Skow, Phil Wheeler, myself, and others, has taught for years.

Carey Reams and Dan Skow have taught us that it is plant available nutrient ratios
that count and correlate to plant growth and health; not simply percent base
saturation of cations on a soil test.

I understand that this really unnerves the strict Albrecht adherents. This group
insists that soil science is strictly cut and dried regarding the CEC and base
saturation percentages for calcium, magnesium, potassium, sodium, hydrogen and
trace minerals.

However, as Reams discovered, plants don't read soil test reports. Though one may
have the desired base saturation percentages for those minerals on a soil test; that
did not mean there would be healthy crops grown in that soil. It did not mean the brix
reading of that crop would be anything more than poor. It did not mean there would
or would not be weed proliferation in that soil.

The only thing it really meant or means today is that we have those ratios for cations
on a soils test and can calculate the grams per hectare for each cation in capital
reserve, period. Reams recognized that we had to know what was functionally
available for plant growth because that would correlate to actual plant production,
plant health and brix reading, weed, disease and insect infestation and biological
activity of the soil.

In any process of learning, we understand basic principles first and then move to
more complex concepts and understandings. We incorporate these basic principles
or meanings for what they contribute to our advanced learning without being limited
by them.

In the same way we take the basic principles Albrecht taught and incorporate them
into a "graduate programme" as taught by Reams / Skow. The Reams' principles
help us to solve and explain problems otherwise not solved or explained in the
Albrecht model.

This advanced program produces competitive yields with the highest nutrient density
/ brix without insect pests, disease and weeds by using nutrition, biology, minerals,

timing, finesse, artistry, management and consistent execution without having to
wage daily war with nature on the chemical weapon treadmill.

Dr Reams found that the soil testing method developed by Dr Morgan at the
University of Connecticut better reflected functional plant available nutrient values in
the soil. Subsequently, Reams evolved the Morgan test into what is called the
Reams testing system today and recommended by International Ag Labs, Agri-
Energy Resources, Phil Wheeler, myself, and a number of others who have
confirmed its value in high quality crop production.

Keep in mind, plants don't read soil tests, so as Reams emphasised, one must "read"
the field and crop to determine the final diagnosis and treatment plan.
Driving this point home, I taught a two-day advanced course in New Zealand this
past February and we had a gentleman bring in a Reams soil test report that showed
over 1500 pounds per acre of phosphorus, several thousand pounds of calcium, 500
or so pounds of potassium, yet he had problems he could not solve.

He was producing a better crop than he had been previously, but just couldn't get the
brix, colour or quality up to what he needed. My recommendation after seeing the
crop, looking at the soil test reports, hearing the history, was for biology, liquid
calcium and some spoon feeding of phosphorous; seemingly quite contrary to what
the soil test showed. He followed the recommendation and had great success.

One mistake that people make, seemingly more often than anything else today, is
relying upon tests, equipment and technology to make decisions for them rather than
using their own deductive understanding, observation skills, and intuition.

A medical example comes to mind. If a person comes into the ER in diabetic
ketoacidosis they will be very ill, soon possibly, ill to the point of death. If we rely
upon or even wait for lab blood values to come back before administering treatment,
it will be too late, the person will be dead. The therapy that must be started is IV
fluids with insulin and potassium.

Now for most people the insulin makes sense because the blood sugar is, as
expected very high in this person. However, the potassium is perhaps the most
important component, yet the person's blood test will show normal to high potassium
levels.

This is because insulin is needed to get potassium into the cell and if insulin is given
without potassium, the blood potassium will get sucked into the cell, the heart rate
will accelerate rapidly to the point of death. The lab test does not reflect the true
potassium status.

Know the patient, treat the patient, not the lab test. Your patient is the soil and plant.
The plants I saw in the New Zealand example were akin to the diabetic ketoacidosis
patient. The plants were sick, weak and in trouble regardless of what the soil test
showed.

Reams recommends phosphorous levels of 200 to 400 pounds per acre and
potassium levels of 100 to 200 pounds per acre and a P:K ratio of 1:1 for row crops
or 2:1 for permanent pasture. At a 3:1 P:K ratio we should be fine, especially with
1500 pounds of phosphorous present.

We also had over 3000 pounds of calcium. The plant had purpling of the leaves,
poor colouring maturity, poor growth and production. Purpling indicates a
phosphorous deficiency, colouring problems relate to potassium and traces
imbalances and growth / quality problems start with calcium deficiency.

The phosphorous was not getting into the cells and phosphorous is the "power" that
drives the plant factory. Without the phosphorous, the potassium, calcium, traces
just sit idly by. The farmer had applied compost tea (tested and verified good
quality), fish, seaweed, humic acid, etc. without solution to his problem.

So like the potassium in the diabetic, we appear to have plenty via testing, but plants
don't read test reports. We only appear to have plenty of phosphorous, potassium
and calcium, but it's all dammed up sitting unusable. As with the potassium in the
diabetic, I must give insulin. In the soil I must give a cocktail of a little soluble
phosphorous, calcium, potassium, biology and sugar to get the desired nutrient
movement / transport / cell uptake, which the grower did and got the desired results.

Mr Menzies' article simply confirms what we have been teaching for years - treat the
patient: in this case the soil and plant, not the lab test.

This is particularly true in some of the soils we see in the cotton belt of Australia -
clay-loam soil with CEC's ranging from 30 to 70. If we attempt to fertilise / lime to the
point of creating the ideal Albrecht numbers, we would be applying truckloads of lime
per hectare. This would be a ridiculous financial strain on the farmer and would not
guarantee any better crop, and perhaps result in complete failure for a year or two.

Many of these high CEC soils already have 10,000 to 15,000 pounds per acre of
calcium growing 25to 50 percent better long staple cotton crops than any found in the
US. This is a tremendous reserve capital asset. The key is functional nutrient status
and converting this reserve asset to cash flow. Biology is a big player in this
conversion, but not the only player particularly when we need fast results that are
feasible and logistically realistic.

In these types of soils, we frequently see calcium to magnesium ratios of 1 to 1 or 2
to 1 on conventional or Albrecht tests, yet much different ratios on the Reams test. It
is possible and not uncommon to have a 2 to 1 calcium to magnesium ratio on the
Albrecht CEC test which can be shifted to a 7 to 1 ratio on the Reams test once the
appropriate remedial program has been put in motion and proper management
allows for good aerobic micro-organism proliferation.

A very important side note regarding this discussion is the assertion by Mr Menzies,
repeated by others in the industry, including the organic and biological industry, that
a soil-mining assay is reflective of realistic soil nutrient cash flow.

The contention is that one simply needs to apply compost and compost tea / extract
to any agricultural soil in the world and every pound or kilogram of nutrient needed by
the plant will magically become available and plentiful. No fertiliser is or will be
needed.

That is a great theory and works just fine for those satisfied with mediocrity, ok with
failed crops, invested heavily in the hippie approach, but it will spell crop and / or
economic failure more often than not. It takes thousands of years for nature to
change soil in that manner and we don't have that time luxury.

We need to combine both the biological approach and the appropriate nutrient
supplementation approach to make this change in three to five years. Just as some
will say we cannot use synthetic vitamins and mineral supplements, orally or IV on
sick patients; some will contend we should not use any supplemental fertilisers
beyond compost and compost tea on sick soils.

Mr Menzies ends his article with a mention of D.C. Edmeades article discrediting
MaxiCrop seaweed use in agriculture. His article claims 810 review trials in various
crops with seaweed and found no significant benefits.

Mentioned is a lawsuit in which the New Zealand courts found against MaxiCrop. Mr
Edmeades additionally commented that similarly, liquid fertilisers applied to the
pastures had no effect on animal production. This conclusion to his paper is
unfortunate and really discredits both Mr Menzies and Mr Edmeades, because it
epitomises the statement that common sense is not so common today.

Biological systems are not one-dimensional and do not fit into the pigeonhole,
reductionist, box of chemical agriculture. If either of these gentlemen had taken the
time to research the scientific literature rather than towing the chemical industry line,
they would have seen the thousands of articles supporting the legitimacy, efficacy,
and science of seaweed use in agriculture.

T.L. Senn at Cornell University was an icon in this work and almost every land grant
university in the US has followed suit with further support of seaweed in commercial
crop production. Further, gentlemen such as Joe Bradford at USDA in South Texas
have proven the efficacy of biological plant production incorporating seaweed and
liquid fertilisers into their programmes.

The eye opener Mr Menzies and Mr Edmeades completely miss is that if seaweed
and the tested liquid fertiliser are not what the plant needs at that point in time, they
won't produce an effect, but that doesn't discredit their legitimacy as plant feeding
materials.

They never consider that perhaps the studies are flawed, not the seaweed and liquid
fertilisers. Unfortunately, Mr Menzies took what was a good article on soil testing
and base saturations of cations and blemished it with an off the wall, sweeping
condemnation of seaweed and liquid fertilisers. It hints of an ulterior motive or
hidden agenda or third party driven political obligation rather than an independent,
public education report.

The take-home message from this entire discussion is that growers must get back to
the realisation that they are growing food for people; that they are positively or
negatively (there is no neutral) impacting the healthfulness of the environment in
which all humankind, animals and plants live; that they are impacting the genetic
expression, longevity and development of every future generation to come; that they
are responsible and liable for the consequences of their actions and inactions.

Food production is about medicine and healthcare, environmental pollution, birth
defects, local and national economies. It's about all sciences integrated into an
understanding of life's wondrous processes. This is why I moved beyond the basic
teachings of Albrecht and into the teachings of Reams.

Reams encouraged an unending expansion of knowledge and study. Dr Reams
always drew a direct connection between human health and soil health, between soil
nutrition - plant nutrition - human nutrition.

He repeatedly told me to study medicine and every area of science I could because
they all added to the art of farming; they all added to my understanding of how nature
functions. So it is that I encourage people to study Albrecht, Reams / Skow,
Callahan, Senn, Tesla, Ingham, and whoever else adds to their knowledge base.

It is unwise and unscientific to stay stuck in a single school of thought while the
awareness and understanding of nature grows around us.

With that in mind, Acres USA will be sponsoring a three-day Soils and Agronomy
Laboratory Course immediately preceding their annual Conference in Minneapolis,
Minnesota in December.

This will be an intensive course in which I will cover the basics of the above named
teachers, plus much more in our quest to assist the grower to produce nutrient
dense, tasty gourmet, safe, clean, bountiful food and drink, while increasing profit per
unit of input, addressing weeds, diseases and insect pests appropriately and safely,
rehabilitating the environment including building carbon stores in the soil as humus.
All reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels as Mr Yeomans prophetically
encourages.

We shall ever keep in mind, however, that the real Priority One for food and fibre
production is nutrition. Without restoring the nutrition to agriculture, even if we did
reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, the human population would be too sick to
benefit.

Even if we did manage to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide levels by some other
method, if we don't restore the nutrition, mineral balance and humus levels to our
soils, the human population would still be too sick to benefit from the reversal of
global warming.

I will additionally be teaching this three-day seminar in August and February 2007 in
Australia and New Zealand.