> wrote in message u...
> > I looked at that, it appears to be a review of the same research
> > presented at a meeting before publication in the paper under
> discussion.
>
> "Ok, I've located the 2008 paper at
> http://www.okologi.dk/PDFs/Kristensen_et_al_2008.pdf . "
>
> I would hope so as it was I who told you could find it online.

Yes, you've a nasty habit of citing stuff without providing a link.

> " 'Table 4. Contents of major and trace elements in each of diets
>
> Cultivation system
>
> Element LIminusP LIplusP HIplusP
> ..
> Co(µgkg?1) 2001 93.4 72.6 65.1
> 2002 82.3 76.8 70.6"
>
> The article was not about vit b12, but let us look at it anyway even
> knowing it is irrelevant to the topic.

You just can't be for real. What's the Subject line? Still clueless?

> Ah, but what do those numbers mean in the real world?

Potential DEFICIENCY.

> What is the
> threshold above which a particular level becomes significant? If you
> knew statistics you would know those numbers are not significally
> different.

If you knew about the geographical differences in cobalt levels you'd
understand that different farming methods could mean the difference
between there being adequate cobalt (B12 production) or not enough.

> Also, see that levels increased in all fields regardless of method used.

Levels fluctuated from year to year, but were highest in pure organic.

> Your claim is that co should decrease with non-organic methods, if I
> recall your previous posts.

And this study that you've brought to our attention supports that..

> You also did not read carefully, they
> discuss why in any type of field levels can change for many reasons.

So this data is basically meaningless now? Is that what you're saying?

> '
> "Thanks!"
>
> My pleasure, always happy to educate others.

You're doing a better job at entertaining others. Thanks again.

> > Am I "happy" yet? Nope, you ain't shown us a paper addressing the
> same
> > question as in the paper under question with equal quality methodology
> > used.
>
> "Like growing some of the "conventional" crops in organic soil?"
>
> Two compared to all,

Two out of six in 2001 (with rapeseed LIplusP in conventional soil),
then two crops out of the five grown in 2002 (no rapeseed grown).

> if the organic only fields should make such a
> difference then their results should literally leap off the page showing
> much better results in only those crops where organic and non-organic
> fields were used in contrast , they did not.

No? This literally leaps off the page and dances a merry jig...

'Table 4. Contents of major and trace elements in each of diets

Cultivation system

Element LIminusP LIplusP HIplusP
...
Co(µgkg-1) 2001 93.4 72.6 65.1
2002 82.3 76.8 70.6'

How about:

'Fe(mg kg-1) 2001 87.6 81.4 83.1
2002 118 89.6 87.2'

Remember this?:

'"While my review looked at the entire picture of nutritional food quality"
says Shane Heaton, author of the Soil Association food quality report,
"this research, by nutritionist Virginia Worthington, has looked
specifically at the comparative vitamin and mineral contents, reviewing
a similar collection of scientific studies.

"Her research confirms our findings that, on average, organic produce
contains significantly higher levels of vitamin C, iron, magnesium and
phosphorus, and how seemingly small differences in nutrients can
mean the difference between getting the recommended daily allowance
- or failing to."

All 21 minerals compared were higher in organic produce.
...'
http://www.soilassociation.org/sa/sa...s10122001.html

> Recall you first claimed,
> inaccurately, that the method "tipped" results in favor of non-organic
> fields.

So how does high input vs. low input represent an even playing field?

> So which is it?

Even growing some "conventional" crops in organic soil didn't suffice.

> > This regardless of it being requested of you some posts ago.
>
> "You were given this link some posts ago...
> http://www.organic-center.org/scienc...&report_id=126
>
> '"New Evidence Confirms the Nutritional Superiority of Plant-Based
> Organic Foods," State of Science Review, March 2008"
>
> Ah, sorry, no cigar again, regardless of organic tobacco or not.

My sympathies.

> The two studies are of two very different universes as to methodology.
> My request was for a study on your part using the same kind of
> methodology where as many factors were controlled as possible while the
> organic method varied.

Why should the organic method vary?

> The above is an over view of research.

The above is a

"Major new report comparing the nutrient content in conventional and
organic foods, based on the findings of 97 published, peer-reviewed
studies."

God help me....