Often problems with some foods labeled as "organic" are found. That does not, however, mean all foods labeled "organic" will have problems. There are people that have no business selling what they sell as organic that do so anyway, just as there are people that sell you other things that are not what they are supposed to be. There are also some people that make claims about "organic" foods they should not be making, which does nothing to convince many of us long time organic gardeners/farmers that what we are doing is wrong and should be changed. Foods grown without being heavily dosed with strong pesticides are better for you unless they have disease pathogens on them. There appears to be enough concern about the Genetically Engineered food that Europe limits where it can be grown and requires foods that are to be labeled, something we, in the USA, are denied.

spedigrees: Limestone varies in magnesium content. If you go to your local agricultural store--I am not sure what you have up there--and ask for “high mag limestone“--crushed or pulverized--they should be able to direct you. The analysis is always posted on the bag. Dolomitic limestone is generally “high-mag,” but perhaps other types of limestone have a high magnesium content. Our soils here in the northern Shenandoah Valley are very high in magnesium, and high mag limestone underlies a good portion of our soils, and high mag limestone is readily available. And, almost all the NS in this area look very nice, in spite of our hot, dry climate. As for soil acidity--that should not be a problem for Norway spruce, unless the soil is extremely acidic, maybe in the low 4’s. At my timberland, where the soils are a bit below 5, Norway spruce does very well. I am not sure what an optimum pH would be, and it would probably vary with soil type. Maybe somewhere in the 5.5 range is "safe." As for magnesium for Norway spruce--this has been fairly well documented. I titled my original post “a hypothesis,” but there is substantial evidence. A site factors study done at SUNY Syracuse some years ago now, noted that “at least 75 kg per hectare” is needed for good NS growth. Studies in Europe, where there has been extensive decline in NS forests, has shown that the acid rain causes a reduction in the availability of magnesium, and supplementing magnesium often solves the problem. And, I have made some personal observations--not scientific, and without all the facts--that magnesium supplementation can make a dramatic difference. But, the main effect of magnesium may not be in height growth, but in the fullness, density, and lushness of the foliage. I have seen many poor looking, thin foliaged NS trees growing reasonably fast in height. Also, the thin foliage on some Norway spruce trees has causes other than a lack of an optimum supply of magnesium. And, I know, some of that is genetic, and not correctable. As for your experiment: Yes, 5 years should be long enough to show some results, but no sooner. The limestone has to dissolve into the soil, get down to the roots, and, because NS hold their needles for several years, the "thickening" of the foliage may not be vis1ble for several years. BUT, and this is a big "but," the effect may not really show up on very young trees. It may help the growth rate, but as for foliage density, that is never really noticeable until trees are somewhat older and larger--maybe not until they are 20 feet tall or more will any difference be really clear. As for the growth rate: white pine usually starts growing faster than NS. How old are your trees? How tall? NS trees don't begin to grow fast until they are about 4.5 feet high, and that could be only after 6 to 8 years. At that point, they should "take off." On the best soils, and in the right climate, an average of 28 inches is possible, with some years the new shoots elongating up to 4 feet or more. But growth averaging 20 to 24 inches is good for many sites. Norway spruce and white pine, assuming equally good strains, should grow equally well over the first 50 years. The white pine up to about 18 years should outgrow the NS, but after that NS should catch up a bit. After 50 years NS should outgrow the white pine for some years. SUNY Syracuse did a growth curves study for NS, and found that for the first 60 years--after the trees reach 4.5 feet in height, there is no "curve" as such, but a straight line. White pine growth curves bend sharply over to the right after the first 18 years or so, and at 50 years the growth averages about 1 foot, while at the same age, NS trees can still be growing 28 inches per year. But this rate does begin to decline not too long after the 60-year mark. On the best sites both should eventually make 150 feet or more in forest stands. Open grown NS should make 120 feet or more on better sites. As for the blue spruce and magnesium, I really don't know. Tom may be right about this. --spruce

Carmen, fruits and vegetables are the healers of the food chain. Tom, you probably know the fruit with a different name.:) there are a lot of varieties that I sampled before. They can grow tall. Silvia Here is a link that might be useful: sapodilla

Coconut oil isn't a "new" thing. It was commonly used in commercial baked goods prior to the late 1960's because the shelved goods stayed fresh longer and resisted mold without the need for chemicals they use now for preservatives. If you want homemade enriched breads to keep fresh longer than a couple days, use coconut oil in the recipe. It will also help prevent mold. Movie theaters and sports stadiums used coconut oil for making popcorn because they could make large quantities of it several days in advance and store it in large plastic tubs or bags; and the popcorn would remain fresh due to the coconut oil. You will find North America and European cookbooks from the late 19th century often included coconut oil (or Copha) in recipes. Copha (a solidified coconut oil) in Australia is used like we use Crisco in the U.S., and Copha is a common ingredient in Australian recipes. Coconut oil went out of favor due to erroneous "scientific" information and political propaganda by the American Soybean Association and the Center for Science in the Public Interest. ------------- OT comment to dcarch's OT comment: People in their 90's grew up in a day and time where agriculture was more "natural", the soil still contained nutrients and micro-organisms that are long gone today. We have seen the ash content (the minerals) in wheat drop as farmers went from traditional farming methods to the modern "chemical warfare" it is today where it's all about larger yields. For their formative years, food the 90's something folks ate actually was nutritious, locally-grown, and was enjoyed in-season. The majority of these 90-something people were raised in more rural than urban areas where they grew much of their own food in gardens and got it from local sources in-season (orchards, truck farms, etc.). Even I can remember my complete surprise the first time I saw "fresh" strawberries and watermelon in the stores in the middle of winter. Farmers let ground lay fallow every few years to rest and restore the nutrients (or grew "green" crops that would add nutrients), rather than the double-cropping they do now (winter wheat is harvested in late June and row crops are planted soon thereafter and harvested in the fall, when winter wheat is once again planted. Ground and crops were dressed with "natural" fertilizers (manure) containing important microbes as well as nutrients, and now are they are fertilized with large injections of chemicals - and then only a few "select" things are added back to the soil. -Grainlady