Here's an apparently obscure comparison, but only insubject matter. the gnostic gospels of the first century and most the gardening books i see for sale today. and perhaps i was unclear earlier. my objection is to the implication that you somehow have a secret that has been acquired. the invocation of (whoever) is just a sales tool. and it's been used for at least two thousand years. Soils are by far the most complex component of growing plants. they are by far the least understood. too often we seem to focus on a dichotomous approach, that is to say, only organic or only modern synthetic agronomic inputs, when the truth is both have value, and depending on the specific problem you have, a combo approach may be best. think we could.feed ourselves without modern fertilizers? think you can't screw up your soil by only using organic methods?

Here's what gets me about the rock powders, and I'll use Azomite as an example -- 89% of what you get with Azomite is silica, alumina, with calcium, magnesium and sodium in whatever salt forms they exist within the aluminosilicate that it is. The amount of other nutrients and "trace elements" in the mix is quite small, and as illustrated in another thread when they are applied as directed the dilution effect means even if they were readily available the amounts you are actually adding are likely to be very small relative to naturally occurring background levels. With more silicate rocks the availability will be further reduced. So unless someone can demonstrate a real, measurable effect from a well controlled study, spending money of rock powders as a means to "mineralize" soils seems to me to be a waste as well as most probably ineffective. All of that is before we consider all the things that can come along with some of the rocks deposits that we don't really want to reinforce in ag soils, and that are often in greater abundance in those rock powders/dusts than the ones we know to be beneficial. The good news is that for the same reasons that they don't make sense to me as meaningful ways to add micronutrients and trace elements, they probably aren't a threat either.

Sources: "Changes in USDA Food Composition Data for 43 Garden Crops, 1950 to 1999" Journal of the American College of Nutrition, Vol. 23, No. 6, December 2004, jacn.org "Vegetables Are Not as Nutritious as They Were in the 1950s" Angela Cortez, Natural Foods Merchandiser, 9/3/09, naturalfoodsmerchandiser.com "Reducing the Risk for Second Breast Cancers" Ivanhoe Newswires, 9/9/09, ivanhoe.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Copyright (c)2009 by Healthier News, LLC. Thank you for your interest in the Health Sciences Institute of Baltimore. We do not allow republication of our full newsletters and articles. However, you can post a portion (no more than 90 words, 1-2 paragraphs) of our content with a live link back to our homepage (www.hsibaltimore.com), or a link to the specific article you are quoting from. OOps, I shouldn't have copied so much of this article here. I'm too computer illiterate to be trusted with this kind of info. But I hope the link will show up.

Nonsense about oil heat adversely affecting sale of my home in my area. As I have previously explained, I live in a relatively affluent subdivision of early 1970s residences in the MD suburbs of DC. The homes built in 1970-1972 all have gas heat. In 1973 a moratorium was created preventing any new gas hookups and thus the second half of the homes all have oil heat. I do follow property values in our area quite closely and the selling prices have no apparent correlation with heating fuel type. As a retired military service member, I have bought and sold many homes - likely more that most here. Heating method, while an item of immense interest in this forum was not at the top of the list of considerations re any home my wife and I bought. Schools, yes. # BRs and # baths, location, age of home, location, commute, condition, perceived re-sale, all yes. (And likely many other considerations, including working heating. lol) I'm a bit of a TV junkie now that I'm retired. I do watch "House Hunters" and I have NEVER heard a house hunter identify heating fuel as a consideration in their search. There is a lot of bad advice given here due to not "doing the math" - all things being equal, I would prefer to have NG heat rather than oil. Cheaper operating costs, not concern about deliveries, etc. However, I have done the best I can to insulate, reduce heating set point, shift the heating burden to heat pump, and closely monitor costs. I don't have NG available, but based on the costs to bring in NG (based on the experience of a few of my neighbors that were able) it makes absolute no economic sense IN MY CASE. If you don't use very much of an expensive product, your absolute costs may not be that great and the incentive to convert may well be lessened. If you visit the roofing forum, I suspect they'll identify the roof as the most important factor effecting price... in the landscaping forum it will be the grounds, in the kitchen forum, the kitchen and bath. Heating is certainly an important concern, but we need not cry wolf about it.