Jump to content
Science Forums

Biological transmutation is true


Recommended Posts

I came across this amazing article. Please check it out and tell me what you think. It appears cold fusion and fission happens all the time in plants and animals.

 

http://www.bio.net/hypermail/MOLECULAR-MODELLING/1997-October/001009.html

 

EVIDENCE THAT ATOMS BEHAVE DIFFERENTLY IN

BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS THAN OUTSIDE OF THEM

 

Madhavendra Puri

The Bhaktivedanta Institute

E-mail: tumle at diku.dk

 

A number of chemists report that plants, animals and human beings

ROUTINELY TRANSMUTE MID-RANGE ELEMENTS (for example, potassium into

calcium or magnesium into calcium) AS PART OF THEIR ORDINARY DAILY

METABOLISM. These transmutations obey rules such as: Mg + O => Ca; K + H

=> Ca. This is revolutionary since, according to current physical theory,

the energy levels required for such transmutations are billions of times

higher than what is available in biological systems. Equally inexplicable

fission reactions such as Ca => Mg + O; Ca => K + H are also reported.

But revolutions in physics have repeatedly occurred, such as the quantum

revolution in which the radical property of non-locality, previously

considered impossible, is now accepted by physicists (see Aspect and

Grangier 1986, Bransden and Joachain 1989, p.671-681, Chiao et al 1993,

Squires 1990, p.173, Rae 1986, p.25-44, and Penrose 1990, p.369).

What I am presenting here is not the "cold fusion" of Fleischmann and

Pons which, as far as I know, lacks clear evidence of actual fusion. Even

if the Fleischmann and Pons effect turns out to be actual fusion, it is

only the fusion of isotopes of the lightest element hydrogen under special

laboratory conditions which is quite different from the UNEQUIVOCAL FUSION

AND FISSION OF MID-RANGE elements found in biological transmutation reports.

 

Now let us examine the evidence for biological transmutation. Crabs,

shellfish and crayfish have shells made largely of calcium. A crab 17 cm

by 10 cm has a shell weighing around 350 grams. Periodically these animals

shed their shell and create a new one. This is called molting. When

molting, a crab is very vulnerable and hides away from all other creatures

so it can not get calcium by preying on other creatures. According to

French chemist C. Louis Kervran of the Conseil d'Hygiene in Paris, sea

water contains far too little calcium to account for the rapid production

of a shell (the calcium content of sea water is about 0.042% and a crab

can form a new shell in little more than one day). If the entire body of a

crab is analyzed for calcium, it is found to contain only enough calcium

to produce 3% of the shell (even taking into account the calcium carbonate

stored in the hepato-pancreas just before molting).

Even in water completely devoid of calcium, shellfish can still create

their calcium-bearing shells as shown by an experiment performed at the

Maritime Laboratory of Roscoff: "A crayfish was put in a sea water basin

from which calcium carbonate had been removed by precipitation; the animal

made its shell anyway." (Kervran 1972, p.58)

"Chemical analysis made on animals secreting their shells has revealed

that calcium carbonate is formed on the outer side of a membrane although

on the opposite side of the membrane, where matter enters, there is no

calcium. This fact has left specialists perplexed." (Kervran 1972, p.58)

Sea water contains a sufficient amount of magnesium to form a shell if

we accept Kervran's proposition that crabs routinely transmute magnesium

into calcium; Mg + O => Ca.

It would be interesting to put a crayfish in water devoid of both

calcium and magnesium and see if it can still create its shell.

 

Normal egg shells produced by hens contain calcium. Kervran (1972,

p.41) reported an experiment in which hens were confined in an area in

which there was no source of calcium and no calcium was present in their

diet. The calcium deficiency became clearly manifested after a few days

when the hens began to lay eggs with soft shells. Then purified mica

(which contains potassium) was given to the hens. Kervran (1972, p.41)

described what then transpired: "The hens jumped on the mica and began

scratching around it very rapidly, panting over it; then they rested,

rolling their heads on it, threw it into the air, and began scratching it

again. The next day eggs with normal shells (weight 7 grams) were laid.

Thus, in the 20 hours that intervened, the hens transformed a supply of

potassium into calcium. ... An experiment of this kind, using the same

mica, was undertaken with guinea-fowls over a period of forty days. The

administering of the mica was suspended three times and each time a

soft-shelled egg was laid ... ."

One might suggest that the calcium in the egg shells was borrowed from

the bones of the hens. But if this is true, why were soft eggs laid when

the mica was withheld and normal eggs laid when mica was given to the

hens? In order to avoid the conclusion that the hens transmuted potassium

into calcium, one would have to show that mica somehow stimulates a

metabolic pathway in which calcium is removed from the hen's bones and

used in the production of the egg shells. This could be completely refuted

by feeding the hens mica (and of course absolutely no calcium) for such a

long period of time that all the calcium in their bones would have been

completely exhausted. If after that time the hens still produce

calcium-bearing egg shells, we must conclude that the calcium in the egg

shells is not being taken from the bones. At that point, we seem to have

no choice but to acknowledge the transmutation of potassium into calcium

within the hens.

 

Kervran (1972, p.52) described experiments performed in 1959 by the

French government in the Sahara desert. The government was interested in

determining the nutritional requirements of petroleum workers in the

extreme heat prevalent in the desert. In the first experiment, conducted

near a place called Ouargla, the total amount of magnesium ingested per

day per man was measured and compared with the amount excreted. It was

found that, on the average, each man daily excreted 117.2 milligrams of

magnesium more than he ingested. Thus, each day, each man lost on the

average 117.2 milligrams of magnesium. Now we must consider how much

magnesium is on reserve in the human body: it turns out that the body is

not able to mobilize more than 5000 milligrams of magnesium. Thus, at a

daily loss of 117.2 milligrams, it is clear that after 50 days the bodies

of the petroleum workers should have been completely depleted of

magnesium. But the experiment was conducted for 180 days and each day each

man excreted on the a verage 117.2 milligrams more than he ingested.

The second experiment lasted for 240 days and was conducted near

Tindouf which has a drier climate. This time each man excreted each day an

average of 256 milligrams of magnesium more than he ingested. Under these

conditions, after 20 days, each man should have been completely depleted

of magnesium; but somehow they survived for 220 days thereafter. It seems

difficult to avoid the conclusion that the human body is able to create

magnesium.

 

Biochemist H. Komaki of the University of Mukogawa in Japan reported

that a number of different families of microorganisms such as Aspergillus

niger and Saccharomyces cerevisiae create potassium during growth. (Komaki

1965, 1967)

 

Kervran described a germination experiment using ryegrass seeds (type

Rina) performed in 1971 by the Laboratory of the Societe des Agriculteurs

de France (Kervran 1972, p.107). Out of an initial group of 2000 seeds,

1000 were set aside as a control batch and the other 1000 were germinated.

The control batch weighed 2.307 grams before drying and 2.035 grams after

drying. These 2.035 grams were analyzed and found to contain 3.02

milligrams of magnesium, 6.97 milligrams of potassium, 6.00 milligrams of

calcium and 0.021 milligrams of copper. The magnesium, calcium and copper

contents were determined by atomic absorption spectroscopy and the

potassium content was determined by flame emission.

The 1000 seeds to be germinated were germinated for 29 days in Petri

dishes under a plastic sheet to insure that no dust could get in. Aside

from 430 milliliters of Evian water, absolutely nothing else was supplied

to the seeds during germination. 430 milliliters of Evian water was found

to contain 10.32 milligrams of magnesium, 0.39 milligrams of potassium,

33.11 milligrams of calcium and 0.00 milligrams of copper.

After the 29 day germination period, the plants were converted to ashes

under high temperature and the ashes and residual Evian water in the Petri

dishes were found to contain 3.20 milligrams of magnesium, 16.67

milligrams of potassium, 36.50 milligrams of calcium and 0.10 milligrams

of copper.

Before germination there were 6.97 milligrams of potassium in the

seeds. During germination 0.39 milligrams of potassium were added to the

growing plants (this came from the Evian water). If atomic nuclei can not

be altered in biological systems, we expect that after germination there

should be 6.97 + 0.39 = 7.36 milligrams of potassium in the plants and

residual Evian water. But this was not the case. After germination the

plants and residual Evian water were found to contain 16.67 milligrams of

potassium. Thus 9.31 milligrams of potassium were apparently created

during germination.

Before germination there were 3.02 milligrams of magnesium in the

seeds. During germination 10.32 milligrams of magnesium were added to the

growing plants (this came from the Evian water). If atomic nuclei can not

be altered in biological systems, we expect that after germination there

should be 10.32 + 3.02 = 13.34 milligrams of magnesium in the plants and

residual Evian water. But after germination the plants and residual Evian

water were found to contain only 3.20 milligrams of magnesium. Thus 10.14

milligrams of magnesium were apparently destroyed during germination.

Before germination there were 0.021 milligrams of copper in the seeds.

During germination 0.00 milligrams of copper were added to the growing

plants. Assuming that atomic nuclei can not be altered, we expect that

after germination there should still be 0.021 milligrams of copper in the

plants and residual Evian water. But it turned out that after germination

the plants and residual Evian water were found to contain 0.10 milligrams

of copper. Thus 0.079 milligrams of copper were apparently created during

germination.

Before germination there were 6.00 milligrams of calcium in the seeds.

During germination 33.11 milligrams of calcium were added to the growing

plants (from the Evian water). Assuming that nuclei can not be altered, we

expect that after germination there should be 39.11 milligrams of calcium

in the plants and residual Evian water. However, after germination the

plants and residual Evian water were found to contain 36.50 milligrams of

calcium. Thus 2.61 milligrams of calcium were apparently destroyed during

germination.

The following challenge can be made: no one knows how much potassium,

calcium, magnesium and copper was in the seeds before they were

germinated. It was assumed that the amounts of these elements was not

significantly different from the amounts of these elements in the control

batch. How do we know this is true? What should have been done is to start

with a 100 grams of seeds, mix them around thoroughly, weigh out 50

batches of 2.000 grams each, randomly select 25 of these as control

batches, determine the amounts of potassium, calcium, magnesium and copper

in these batches and note the maximum variation in these elements among

these batches. The remaining 25 batches can then be germinated and the

plants analyzed for element content. In this way we would have some

measure of the variation among different batches (both germinated and

control).

On the positive side, it can be argued that since the seeds of the

control and germinated batches were of the same type, the variation in

element content between these two batches was not significant. Some

support for this idea can be found in the data provided by chemist D. Long

of the Michaelis Nutritional Research Laboratory in Harpenden, England.

Long analyzed (using atomic spectroscopy) six batches of ryegrass seeds

(each of which weighed 5.4 grams before drying) and discovered that the

difference in potassium content between the batch containing the greatest

amount of potassium and the batch containing the least amount of potassium

was 0.054 milligrams of potassium per gram of dry seed weight. Similarly,

the maximum difference in magnesium content was 0.033 milligrams per gram

of dry seed weight, that of calcium was 0.091 milligrams per gram of dry

seed weight, and that of copper was 1.19 micrograms per gram of dry seed

weight. (Long 1971, p.7)

Kervran proposed that the plants performed the following nuclear

reactions: Mg + O => Ca; Ca => K + H. Kervran did not discuss the reaction

involving copper.

Based on experience derived from similar experiments, Kervran said

that if the seeds are germinated in doubly-distilled water, the amount of

transmuted material is much smaller and may fall within the range of

experimental error and therefore not be significant. The reason for this

is that each kind of plant is only able to transmute certain elements into

certain other elements. Thus the experimenter must provide the plant with

a certain amount of certain elements if he wants to observe a large amount

of transmuted material. For germinating ryegrass seeds, Evian water is the

perfect growth medium because it provides this particular kind of plant

with the elements it needs.

Kervran (1972, p.132) also described a series of experiments in which

wheat and oat seeds were germinated "on porous ashless paper saturated

with a fertilizing solution of salts dissolved in water. The solution was

free of calcium." In the case of wheat (Roux Clair) there was 3.34 times

more calcium in the plants than in the seeds; in the case of one kind of

oats (Noire du Prieure) there was 4.16 times more calcium in the plants

than in the seeds; in the case of another kind of oats (Panache de Roye)

there was 4.51 times more calcium in the plants than in the seeds. The

calcium content was determined by two independent methods (conventional

chemical analysis and atomic absorption spectroscopy); both methods agreed

closely. Kervran performed more than 20 such experiments, mostly on oat

seeds.

Kervran (1972, p.133) mentioned that the moon plays an important role

in the production of calcium. The above huge increases in calcium were

obtained in experiments in which the germination started at the new moon

and stopped on the second full moon (after 6 weeks). This is an important

consideration for those who attempt to duplicate these results. A lunar

influence on the metabolic activity of various plants and animals was also

reported by biologist Frank A. Brown. (Gauquelin 1969, p.131-133)

D. Long questioned Kervran's methods of analysis. Long (1971, p.9) said

that Kervran had made (in some of his earlier experiments) the mistake of

comparing the ash weight of the control batch with the ash weight of the

plants after germination. Kervran may have made this mistake in some of

his earlier experiments but he did not do so in the ryegrass, wheat and

oat germination experiments described above. In these experiments, he

rightly compared the weight of the control batch with the weight of the

seeds to be germinated. In other words, the weight comparison was done on

the two batches of seeds before one batch was germinated. This is the

correct procedure as acknowledged by Long himself.

Long germinated ryegrass seeds in deionized water and reported that he

was unable to observe a transmutation of elements. As discussed above,

this is to be expected since without a sufficient input of certain

elements, there is insufficient material to be transmuted.

A more serious criticism is Long's claim that he corresponded with

Kervran who advised him to germinate green lentil seeds (Leguminacae) in

water containing certain minerals. Long reported that although he did this

he was still unable to observe a significant transmutation of elements.

But Long did not attempt to duplicate the best of Kervran's germination

experiments, namely the ryegrass, wheat and oat experiments described

above. I hope that many scientists will do these experiments and report

the results to the scientific community.

In the 1950s Pierre Baranger, a professor and the director of the

Laboratory of Organic Chemistry at the Ecole Polytechnique in Paris,

performed a large number of germination experiments and concluded that

plants routinely transmute elements. Baranger did his experiments

independently of Kervran. Baranger said: "My results seem impossible, but

here they are. I took every precaution. I repeated the experiments many

times. I made thousands of analyses for years. I had the results verified

by third parties who did not know what I was investigating. I used several

methods. I changed my experimenters. But there is no escape. We must

submit to the evidence: plants transmute elements." (Michel 1959, p.82)

I tried to get more information by writing letters to the Ecole

Polytechnique, the Societe des Agriculteurs de France and the Agronomie

Research National Institute, but I received no reply.

 

In 1975 chemists O. Heroux and D. Peter of the Division of Biological

Sciences of the National Research Council of Canada conducted a meticulous

experiment with rats (Heroux and Peter 1975). They measured the amount of

magnesium ingested through food, water (and even air) as well as the

amount of magnesium excreted in the form of urine and feces over three

periods of time: 69 days, 240 days and 517 days. In the case in which the

rats were fed a diet in which the amount of magnesium ingested was less

than the amount of magnesium excreted, it was expected that the total

amount of magnesium in the body would decrease. In fact, long before the

517th day of the experiment it was expected that there would be zero

magnesium in the body. However, when the rats were analyzed for total

magnesium on the 517th day, each rat contained, on the average, 82

milligrams of magnesium. The method used to determine the amount of

magnesium in the body, food, water, air, feces and urine was atomic

absorption spectroscopy.

Heroux and Peter verified the accuracy of their determinations by

giving samples to two other laboratories (the Division of Chemistry at the

National Research Council and the Department of Chemistry at McMaster

University); both of these laboratories obtained essentially the same

results as Heroux and Peter at the Division of Biology at the National

Research Council. Finally, other methods were used (such as destructive

neutron activation and spectrographic emission) and these methods yielded

results very similar to those obtained using atomic absorption

spectroscopy.

I do not advise the replication of this experiment since it involved

killing the rats in order to analyze their bodies for magnesium.

Experiments involving animal killing are not required since there are many

ways (as described above) to verify biological transmutation without such

killing.

 

Bibliography

 

Albert, D. "Bohm's Alternative to Quantum Mechanics."

Scientific American, May 1994, pages 32-39

 

Aspect, A. and Grangier, P. "Experiments on Einstein-

Podolsky-Rosen-type Correlations with Pairs of Visible Photons."

In Quantum Concepts in Space and Time (edited by R. Penrose and

C. J. Isham). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986

 

Bohm, D. and Peat, F. Science, Order and Creativity.

New York: Bantam Books, 1987

 

Bransden, B. and Joachain, C. Introduction to Quantum Mechanics.

Essex: Longman Group U.K. Limited, 1989

 

Chiao, R., Kwait, P. and Steinberg, A. "Faster than light?"

Scientific American, August 1993, pages 38-46

 

Darnell, J., Lodish, H. and Baltimore, D. Molecular Cell Biology.

New York: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1990

 

Gauquelin, M. The Cosmic Clocks. London: Peter Owen, 1969

 

Heroux, O. and Peter, D. "Failure of balance measurements to

predict actual retention of magnesium and calcium by rats as

determined by direct carcass analysis." Journal of Nutrition,

1975, volume 105, pages 1157-1167

 

Kervran, C. Louis. Biological Transmutation.

New York: Swan House Publishing Company, 1972

 

Komaki, H. "Sur la formation de sels de potassium par

differentes familles de microorganismes dans un milieu sans

potassium." Revue de Pathologie Comparee, Paris, September 1965

 

Komaki, H. "Production de proteines par 29 souches de

microorganismes et augmentation du potassium en milieu de

culture sodique, sans potassium." Revue de Pathologie Comparee,

Paris, April 1967

 

Long, D. B. "Laboratory Report on Biological Transmutation."

Monograph of the Henry Doubleday Research Society.

Braintree, Essex, England, September 1971

 

Michel, A. "Un savant francais bouleverse la science atomique."

Science et Vie, Paris, 1959, pages 81-87

 

Penrose, R. The Emperor's New Mind. New York: Vintage Press, 1990

 

Rae, A. Quantum Physics: Illusion or Reality? Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1986

 

Squires, E. Conscious Mind in the Physical World.

Bristol: Adam Hilger, 1990

Link to post
Share on other sites
I came across this amazing article. Please check it out and tell me what you think. It appears cold fusion and fission happens all the time in plants and animals.

 

http://www.bio.net/hypermail/MOLECU...ber/001009.html

A suggestion concerning style, Daymare: Don’t copy the contents of linked-to articles into posts – it makes the thread long and hard to read, and, given the link, isn’t necessary.

 

From a cultural and historical perspective, I find the article interesting, in that, if the citation, which date from the 1970s and earlier are accurately summarized, it suggests that interest in cold fusion well predates Pons & Fleishmann’s experiment and 4/23/1989 press release, the event that brought the subject to widespread popular awareness. I’m skeptical that this is the case, but can’t discount it without examining the cited texts, which, due to there age and “fringey” nature, may be difficult to do.

 

From a scientific perspective, and the perspective of one of the many who suffered some personal embarrassment over being unduly credulous of Pons & Fleishmann’s 1989 claims, I’m skeptical of the claim that biological organisms (eg: crabs, chickens) commonly transmute elements (eg: Mg (magnesium) or K (potassium) to Ca (calcium)). I’ve 2 main reasons for my skepticism:

  • The evidence presented is unclear and anecdotal, when a clear and compelling presentation would be easier. For example, one could measure stoichiometrically (eg: by burning, seperating, and weighing) the total “before” mass of Ca in a crab and the contents of a sealed container of stuff necessary for the crab to undergo a molting cycle under the described conditions (too little Ca, but plenty of Mg), then let a similar container of crab and stuff undergo a molting cycle, and measure the “after” Ca mass. The amount of transmuted Ca claimed is dramatic – over 340 g for a typical crab – and would easily be detected by this method, if the claimed phenomena really occurs.
  • If organisms were as effective as claimed at replacing deficiencies in Ca with other, more abundant and easily metabolized elements, Ca deficiencies (eg: thin crab shells and chicken eggs) would not occur. In particular, Ca deficiencies such as osteoporosis, a serious medical problem in humans, could be easily treated with easy-to-metabolize, safe, and otherwise beneficial dietary K. There’s no medical evidence that this occurs, despite the routine practice of prescribing an over-abundance of dietary K (to treat an unrelated condition, electrolyte deficiency) in populations at risk for osteoporosis.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You haven't even said what's strange about it!!

 

"It cannot be true, therefore it is not true". This is a brilliant method that has lead to many great breakthroughs in science.

 

First and foremost you do nothing except post someone else's content. It would help if you would bother to post your OWN views on it instead, and just link to the article.

 

Second, it is indeed a strange claim. Phrases like this:

 

Under these

conditions, after 20 days, each man should have been completely depleted

of magnesium; but somehow they survived for 220 days thereafter. It seems

difficult to avoid the conclusion that the human body is able to create

magnesium.

 

It forgets, however, that there may be alternatives. It would help to suggest those and show why they do not apply in this situation before ruling them out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is relative to a question I was about to ask. So now I dont have to make a new topic.

 

Have the found out how to turn any elements into gold yet? Could it be that hard if you only had to figure out how to arange the atoms?

I wondered if some atoms are only what they are and cant change into others...

 

Or for that matter, any elment into another element? or do they only change states and bond differently?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Have the found out how to turn any elements into gold yet? … Or for that matter, any elment into another element?

I think it’s accurate to say that we’ve known how to change the atomic number and/or weight of elements (Eg: lead to gold) since around 1900. Basically, just shoot hydrogen, helium, or any nuclei at the target nuclei, “softly” to make the extra protons and neutrons “stick” to raise the numbers, or “hard” to split the nuclei to lower them. Particle accelerators are the current tool of choice for doing this, though other methods are possible.

 

The lead to gold trick has actually been done at least twice: intentionally in 1980 by Glen Seaborg, and, it’s claimed, accidentally by some Soviet physicists in 1972 (some lead shielding of an experimental fission reactor into gold).

 

Like most things involving particle accelerators, making lead into gold is much more expensive than the difference in price of lead and gold, making it of scientific, not commercial, value only.

 

Note that many of the transuranic (atomic number > 92) elements decay so quickly that they’ve been proven to exist only by creating them in accelerators. (Seaborg had one named after him, the only person to have an element named after him while he was still alive)

 

Most of the interesting Physics about artificial atoms like these is predicting the ones that are more stable than their neighboring elements and isotopes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 years later...

I am giving this thread a bump because it predates a discussion on this topic taking place in another thread here, and frankly, I feel the discussion is in the correct forum here.

 

I have raised chickens my entire life, excluding my time in the military, so I find any claim that chickens can somehow transform potassium into calcium as absurd. As I have stated before, I am not qualified, especially in the realm of physics, to properly debunk Kervran's claims. I spent the majority of this morning's pot of coffee going through various google searches trying to find credible experiments supporting Kervran's chicken egg shell claims, but couldn't find anything reliable one way or the other. A few times I found the passage in the opening post quoted, ostensibly a review of Kervran's book Biological Transmutation and related publications, though I do not have access to the book to verify the accuracy of the quoted portions.

 

 

 

Now let us examine the evidence for biological transmutation. Crabs,

shellfish and crayfish have shells made largely of calcium. A crab 17 cm

by 10 cm has a shell weighing around 350 grams. Periodically these animals

shed their shell and create a new one. This is called molting. When

molting, a crab is very vulnerable and hides away from all other creatures

so it can not get calcium by preying on other creatures. According to

French chemist C. Louis Kervran of the Conseil d'Hygiene in Paris, sea

water contains far too little calcium to account for the rapid production

of a shell (the calcium content of sea water is about 0.042% and a crab

can form a new shell in little more than one day). If the entire body of a

crab is analyzed for calcium, it is found to contain only enough calcium

to produce 3% of the shell (even taking into account the calcium carbonate

stored in the hepato-pancreas just before molting).

Even in water completely devoid of calcium, shellfish can still create

their calcium-bearing shells as shown by an experiment performed at the

Maritime Laboratory of Roscoff: "A crayfish was put in a sea water basin

from which calcium carbonate had been removed by precipitation; the animal

made its shell anyway." (Kervran 1972, p.58)

"Chemical analysis made on animals secreting their shells has revealed

that calcium carbonate is formed on the outer side of a membrane although

on the opposite side of the membrane, where matter enters, there is no

calcium. This fact has left specialists perplexed." (Kervran 1972, p.58)

 

Bait and switch (hehe)

Crabs and crayfish are crustaceans, and as such, they do not have calcium carbonate shells. Shellfish that make calcium carbonate shells do not molt. Crustaceans that molt have shells made of chitin, not calcium carbonate.

 

 

Normal egg shells produced by hens contain calcium. Kervran (1972,

p.41) reported an experiment in which hens were confined in an area in

which there was no source of calcium and no calcium was present in their

diet. The calcium deficiency became clearly manifested after a few days

when the hens began to lay eggs with soft shells. Then purified mica

(which contains potassium) was given to the hens. Kervran (1972, p.41)

described what then transpired: "The hens jumped on the mica and began

scratching around it very rapidly, panting over it; then they rested,

rolling their heads on it, threw it into the air, and began scratching it

again. The next day eggs with normal shells (weight 7 grams) were laid.

Thus, in the 20 hours that intervened, the hens transformed a supply of

potassium into calcium. ... An experiment of this kind, using the same

mica, was undertaken with guinea-fowls over a period of forty days. The

administering of the mica was suspended three times and each time a

soft-shelled egg was laid ... ."

One might suggest that the calcium in the egg shells was borrowed from

the bones of the hens. But if this is true, why were soft eggs laid when

the mica was withheld and normal eggs laid when mica was given to the

hens? In order to avoid the conclusion that the hens transmuted potassium

into calcium, one would have to show that mica somehow stimulates a

metabolic pathway in which calcium is removed from the hen's bones and

used in the production of the egg shells. This could be completely refuted

by feeding the hens mica (and of course absolutely no calcium) for such a

long period of time that all the calcium in their bones would have been

completely exhausted. If after that time the hens still produce

calcium-bearing egg shells, we must conclude that the calcium in the egg

shells is not being taken from the bones. At that point, we seem to have

no choice but to acknowledge the transmutation of potassium into calcium

within the hens.

 

Having fed various feed formulations over many years, I find it absurd that calcium deficient chickens can make their own calcium from any source. Anyone who has raised chickens will tell you the first sign a chicken is deficient in calcium is that it starts to peck its own eggs. If you are diligent, or your laying box is clever enough, you can prevent this, but the eggshells will soon be thin to transparent if the chicken's diet is not supplemented. When feeding standard feed blends, the calcium is separate from the grains and offered free choice, so it is a simple matter to observe the effects of calcium deficiency in laying hens with all other variables being equal. I have no idea why Kervran claims that potassium offered free choice elicited the response one would expect when offering calcium free choice to calcium deficient layers. I wonder if the mica he was using truly contained potassium? I am no geologist, but the wikipedia article on mica claims that it is made of a whole slew of elements, and can contain either Ca, K, Na, or other elements as one constituent part.

 

I have not noticed, or at least have never correctly diagnosed, potassium deficiency in layers, but this report determines that potassium deficiency leads to the same symptoms in layers as calcium deficiency. They, however, do not resort to intra-cellular fusion to describe why potassium is a necessary part of the laying hen's diet.

Studies on the Potassium Requirement of the Laying Hen

Since the potassium content of the egg shell is very low, the effect of this element on shell formation does not appear to be related to a direct participation in shell structure. It is more likely that potassium is playing an important role in the process of shell formation. Although the albumen accounts for much of the potassium found in the egg, only a portion of this potassium is present in the albumen as secreted by the magnum. A substantial portion of the potassium is added to the albumen in the shell gland during the process of calcification. Potassium is one of the ions involved in the electrolyte exchange which takes place between the egg and the shell gland tissue during shell formation. Like the process of shell formation, this electrolyte exchange is sensitive to changes in acid-base balance. It is also possible that potassium is affecting shell formation through its known effects upon bone mineralization since bone mobilization makes a significant contribution to the supply of calcium needed for shell formation. It appears that potassium has a direct effect upon shell formation independent of the effect upon egg production and food intake. Examination of the data from these experiments shows that the effect of potassium deficiency upon egg shell thickness occurs prior to the reduction in egg production and the appearance of the symptoms of potassium deficiency. Thus, although these results show that potassium can have substantial effects upon shell thickness, the exact mode of action and relationship to other dietary ions will have to be elucidated by future experimentation.

 

I skimmed the rest of the quoted passage in the original post, and am unable to comment on any of the other points made, other than to assert again here as I have elsewhere that anyone claiming planting by the moon to be a legitimate concern should be correctly classified as a lunatic. Numerous commercial crops with a fixed time from germination to harvest are planted throughout the season to allow for continuous harvest. That moon cycle planting persists as a myth in horticulture is a reminder that we are only a few generations removed from all sorts of unfounded and incorrectly attributed mythologies in agriculture.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
Crabs and crayfish are crustaceans, and as such, they do not have calcium carbonate shells. Crustaceans that molt have shells made of chitin, not calcium carbonate.
I think you provide your own bait and switch here. While you are correct that crustaceans have shells made of chitin, what you do not report is that chitin in pure form would produce a leathery shell. Crustaceans use metabolic pathways that combine chitin with calcium carbonate to produce the hard shells they have.

 

I have no idea why Kervran claims that potassium offered free choice elicited the response one would expect when offering calcium free choice to calcium deficient layers. I wonder if the mica he was using truly contained potassium? I am no geologist' date=' but the wikipedia article on mica claims that it is made of a whole slew of elements, and can contain either Ca, K, Na, or other elements as one constituent part.
You make an excellent point that could be put to experiment. There are many different types of mica, and a large class of them DO NOT contain calcium, but some do. So, a very simple experiment could be conducted to falsify the claim of Kervran. Feed some only mica that does not contain calcium (but high in potassium), feed another group mica that does contain calcium, then of course the normal control populations. Such a simple experiment, why has it never been attempted ?

 

anyone claiming planting by the moon to be a legitimate concern should be correctly classified as a lunatic.

But, there are many reports of experiments testing the hypothesis as a legitimate concern, many finding positive association of plant growth with cycles of the moon. Are they all lunatics then ?

 

http://plantingbythemoon.co.uk/?page_id=23

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rade, the fact remains that there is NO credible experimental evidence to support the claims that chickens or crustaceans produce their own calcium. I agree, providing experimental support for Kervan's claims would be simple. Having raised chickens, I can tell you that it is bunk. Again, I cannot adequately debunk pseudoscience, yet anyone can raise a few chickens and see for themselves that no chicken can create its own calcium from potassium. Have you tried? Have you tried raising freshwater shrimp in an aquaponic system and monitoring calcium ion levels? Have you tried keeping a saltwater aquarium? Indeed, providing support for Kervan's claims would be simple, if you wish, you could easily do so. If you'd like advice on how to set up a saltwater aquarium, Moontanman (and I presume others) should be able to help you. For advice on raising chickens, aquaponics, hydroponics, and general horticulture, feel free to ask me.

 

Yes, anyone claiming planting by lunar cycles, or the position of the moon amongst the zodiac signs, or biodynamic preparations, or any other sort of agriculture mythology that has no repeatable, experimental support with adequate controls is in my book a lunatic. I find biodynamics especially distressing, as the mysticism angle that makes it laughable detracts from the otherwise sound ecological practices, in the same way that permaculture finds itself mischaracterized because of a handful of non-scientific kooks. In a post in another thread I show that the greatest possible variation in gravity experienced by a 90 kg object at sea level is equivalent to raising the altitude of that object by 15 meters. So yes, anyone claiming the position of the moon at the time of planting somehow affects the growth pattern of the plant is a lunatic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Even in water completely devoid of calcium, shellfish can still create

their calcium-bearing shells as shown by an experiment performed at the

Maritime Laboratory of Roscoff: "A crayfish was put in a sea water basin

from which calcium carbonate had been removed by precipitation; the animal

made its shell anyway." (Kervran 1972, p.58)

 

I can dispute this quite easily, first of all, crayfish do not and cannot live in sea water... Crayfish are strictly freshwater animals. Secondly before a crustacean molts it chemically removes the vast majority of calcium and other chemicals it needs from it's shell and concentrates them in it's blood stream, only then does it shed it's shell, then it pumps it's self full of water to expand the new soft shell and after this is done it again removes the calcium and other chemical it concentrated in it's blood and uses them to harden it's new shell... This is a well known process, i have observed it many times and if you do not provide enough trace elements in the water for your crustacean charges they will eventually suffer from the lack of those chemicals as the process of shedding, retaining chemicals, and regrowing the shell is not 100% efficient...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 years later...

I can dispute this quite easily, first of all, crayfish do not and cannot live in sea water... Crayfish are strictly freshwater animals. Secondly before a crustacean molts it chemically removes the vast majority of calcium and other chemicals it needs from it's shell and concentrates them in it's blood stream, only then does it shed it's shell, then it pumps it's self full of water to expand the new soft shell and after this is done it again removes the calcium and other chemical it concentrated in it's blood and uses them to harden it's new shell... This is a well known process, i have observed it many times and if you do not provide enough trace elements in the water for your crustacean charges they will eventually suffer from the lack of those chemicals as the process of shedding, retaining chemicals, and regrowing the shell is not 100% efficient...

There are a few crayfish that can live in brackish or salt water.  http://academics.smcvt.edu/dfacey/AquaticBiology/Freshwater%20Pages/CRAYFISH.html

Edited by loup
Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a few crayfish that can live in brackish or salt water.  http://academics.smcvt.edu/dfacey/AquaticBiology/Freshwater%20Pages/CRAYFISH.html

 

 

No they do not...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crayfish

 

Crayfish, also known as crawfishcrawdadsfreshwater lobstersmountain lobsters, or mudbugs, are freshwatercrustaceans resembling small lobsters, to which they are related; taxonomically, they are members of the superfamiliesAstacoidea and Parastacoidea. They breathe through feather-like gills. Some species are found in brooks and streams where there is running fresh water, while others thrive in swamps, ditches, and rice paddies. Most crayfish cannot tolerate polluted water, although some species such as Procambarus clarkii are hardier. Crayfish feed on living and dead animals and plants

 

 

 

Care to name a few marine crayfish species? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...