Le Potager du Sloth: Gardening without fatigue more than Bio

[Did67]

Thank you !!!! It was at this passage that I thought.

Doubly pleased:

a) do not always write and repeat the same thing ...

b) suddenly responding becomes a bit of a collaborative work - and in my recent realization that I have to "be careful", that's welcome.

[Did67]

if you could give us your opinion on K Schreiber's video by JP Bord (plants grow alone)...
I looked at it, but with KS it's always the same: hang on to pick!

I'll watch that too!

KS is a bit, like me, "big mouth" and therefore, from time to time, like me, makes presentations with "shock images" ... When you want to "deconstruct" received ideas in a limited time ( "man has always plowed", "'if the land is not worked, it does not grow"; "without fertilization, it will be skinny ..."), we do not really have the choice of shade , there is so much resistance. But I've also seen one go astray (at least seriously exaggerate a point of view).

[Did67]

Ah, so!

The scientists would they finally find a "method" (of statistical treatments) allowing to highlight what many suspected ...


Organic food significantly reduces cancer risk

The presence of pesticide residues in the conventional diet could explain the decrease of 25% of the risk in the big consumers of bio.

For regulatory agencies, pesticide residues in the diet pose no health risk. But a recent body of evidence on the effects of mixtures of molecules and chronic exposures at low doses suggests that the risks posed by traces of phytosanitary products are, on the contrary, very real for the consumer.

A French epidemiological study, published Monday October 22 in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine, is the first to point out such risks in the general population, with regard to cancer.

It indicates that the largest consumers of organically grown food have a reduced cancer risk of 25%, compared to those who consume the least. "To explain these results, the hypothesis of the presence of synthetic pesticide residues much more frequent and at higher doses in foods from conventional agriculture compared to organic foods is most likely," says Emmanuelle Kesse-Guyot , researcher (National Institute of Agricultural Research, INRA) in the research team in nutritional epidemiology (INSERM, INRA, University Paris-XIII) and co-author of this work.

In fact, the types of cancer with the lowest risk for consumers of "AB" labeled foods are also associated with pesticide exposures to farmers.
Unpublished demonstration

Conducted by Julia Baudry and Emmanuelle Kesse-Guyot, the authors exploited data from a large cohort, called NutriNet, of nearly 70 000 volunteers followed between 2009 and 2016. They divided individuals into four groups, ranking them as the largest consumers of organic foods (about 50% of their diet), those who consume only occasionally, or never.

The rest of the article is paid. I do not have access ...

For the bad tongues always ready to denigrate the INRA, supposed "sold" to the powers of money and still supposed 100% indoctrinated by the productivist approaches, note that it is a study of ... the INRA!

[Julienmos]

I'll watch that too!

KS is a bit, like me, "big mouth" and therefore, from time to time, like me, makes presentations with "shock images" ... When you want to "deconstruct" received ideas in a limited time ( "man has always plowed", "'if the land is not worked, it does not grow"; "without fertilization, it will be skinny ..."), we do not really have the choice of shade , there is so much resistance. But I've also seen one go astray (at least seriously exaggerate a point of view).

I've just overhauled it and it's better, understanding question.

but some words surprise a little, a few random sentences:

-the more carbon the soil eats, the more nitrogen it produces (too much importance attributed to carbon, fibers, lignin? too much importance given to "free-fixing" bacteria? at the end he says that 60% of the nitrogen comes from biological fixation)

-it seems to deny the famous "nitrogen hunger" ... that personally I was able to observe at home

-especially, there is this story of "meat" that the plants would eat directly ... which would do "microbial lysis" ... which would absorb not only the minerals released by the decomposition of the organic mat, but also the acids amino proteins that make up living soil organisms ???

-that put nitrates is a mistake ...
he speaks of urine secreted by worms and other organisms (urea, ammonium, NH 4) and which is used by plants

[to be chafoin]

-that put nitrates is a mistake ...
he speaks of urine secreted by worms and other organisms (urea, ammonium, NH 4) and which is used by plants

Regarding earthworms, it is true that they urinate and that with other secretions (mucus) and excrements (faeces) they strongly participate in the nitrogen cycle which will rise in the plants. If we are to believe the measurements carried out by Bouché directly in fertile ecosystems (therefore having the correct quantities of active soilworms, in particular the anecic), the proportion of nitrogen thus supplied to the plants would be much greater than that provided by mineral fertilizer inputs by farmers, both in quantity and "quality".

[Moindreffor]

excellent, and on the possible excess of MO that would create anaerobic conditions? possible or with such doses that we would never get there

[Moindreffor]

Ah, so!

The scientists would they finally find a "method" (of statistical treatments) allowing to highlight what many suspected ...


Organic food significantly reduces cancer risk

The presence of pesticide residues in the conventional diet could explain the decrease of 25% of the risk in the big consumers of bio.

For regulatory agencies, pesticide residues in the diet pose no health risk. But a recent body of evidence on the effects of mixtures of molecules and chronic exposures at low doses suggests that the risks posed by traces of phytosanitary products are, on the contrary, very real for the consumer.

A French epidemiological study, published Monday October 22 in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine, is the first to point out such risks in the general population, with regard to cancer.

It indicates that the largest consumers of organically grown food have a reduced cancer risk of 25%, compared to those who consume the least. "To explain these results,the hypothesis of the presence of synthetic pesticide residues much more common and at higher doses in foods from conventional agriculture compared to organic foods is most likely "says Emmanuelle Kesse-Guyot, researcher (National Institute of Agricultural Research, INRA) in the research team in nutritional epidemiology (Inserm, INRA, University Paris-XIII) and co-author of this work.

In fact, the types of cancer with the lowest risk for consumers of "AB" labeled foods are also associated with pesticide exposures to farmers.
Unpublished demonstration

Conducted by Julia Baudry and Emmanuelle Kesse-Guyot, the authors exploited data from a large cohort, called NutriNet, of nearly 70 000 volunteers followed between 2009 and 2016. They divided individuals into four groups, ranking them as the largest consumers of organic foods (about 50% of their diet), those who consume only occasionally, or never.

The rest of the article is paid. I do not have access ...

For the bad tongues always ready to denigrate the INRA, supposed "sold" to the powers of money and still supposed 100% indoctrinated by the productivist approaches, note that it is a study of ... the INRA!

and PAF, we designate by default a most probable hypothesis, because we focus on this factor, the INRA also needs to leave this image

Is that the biggest organic eaters would not be as larger sportsmen, hikers, walkers, with a much better lifestyle, less meat consumption, fat, sugars and socio also a class cultural easier (I know we can eat organic low coast )

I am not a pro-chemist, but as soon as I see "more probable" "one must believe that", "one would be led to think that", I wonder the interest of the study because in the end it does NOT prove ANYTHING , it's just going well with the times

I often submitted files to obtain grants for my projects, I have always been successful, because I used the "GOOD" words, at the "GOOD" times, you had to know how to follow fashion, when I read the files of colleagues I knew in advance that theirs would not pass, I offered them to change but few accepted, stuck on their positions

do not be fooled, each lab must be placed on the chessboard of subsidies to live and must publish a number of works per year to justify their work , and it is always more dangerous to go wrong, so when you publish what people want to hear it always goes better

it is clear that a healthier, more balanced, more diverse diet will always be better

70 000 case is a study made by questionnaires, and we know that it is easy to guide the answer even without having the will,

so advocate for a better diet, as natural as possible (I did not say using natural products) I agree, such a study is for me a little put in the skin of the open doors breaker

[Did67]

Aerobics was a gesture popularized by two girls on a TV antenna.

With regard to living things, the conditions are "aerobic" (presence of oxygen) or "anaerobic" (without oxygen).

In the first case, therefore aerobic [aerobic living conditions], the "demantibulation" of organic matter is carried out to the end, the C being found to be completely oxidized in the CO² released, at 100%. All of the solar energy assimilated at the start, when the CO² is fixed, will have been recovered by living beings. The cycle can start again, via photosynthesis. This is called "cellular respiration" synonymous with "oxidative decompositions", summarized in an equation-symbol: glucose + 6 O² gives 6 CO² and 6 H₂O + energy.

In the second case, anaerobiosis therefore, they are incomplete decompositions, not resulting, for the C, with 100% of CO², for lack of O²:

- anaerobic digestion: we obtain CH₄ and CO²
- alcoholic fermentation: sugars give ethanol and CO²
- lactic fermentation: sugars give lactic acid (this is what happens in case of violent efforts, the cell, lacking oxygen, forms lactic acid (instead of another acid little known, essential in the cell cycle, pyruvic acid, but this also happens when in the manufacture of yogurt, lactose - a sugar of the alit- is converted into lactic acid by lactobacillus or other bifidobacteriums)

These are “less perfect” processes, which only recover part of the stored energy and release molecules which still contain a lot of it (ethanol or methane flames!).

In short, aerobie or anaérobie, that is the question! [It hurt my ears to see "aerobic" teaching in Welsch's video]

[phil53]

If too much hay or other organic material is at risk of running out of oxygen and choking the living you want to favor?
This year I have spread about 50cm of unpacked hay.

[Moindreffor]

Aerobics was a gesture popularized by two girls on a TV antenna.

excellent, terrible fault, I am red with shame behind my screen, it reminds me of my biochemistry and all their cycles, but by far I prefer alcoholic fermentation, especially when it is followed by a good distillation

So possible or not an excess of MO that leads to an anaerobic decomposition, which would not be detrimental, but just incomplete, I ask you the question because I'm going to fetch cow dung and as it's open bar and gratos, in my fill soil I thought to load the mule, so must we still be reasonable?