Where in the New World did the Lehites plant the seeds they brought from the Old?

[ERayR]

Ariarates exhibits a lack of understanding of agriculture with this approach. All one has to do is look at the range where these crops are presently grown to see that this premise is flawed. A quick Google search shows that grains (wheat, barley, corn etc) are currently grown from Canada to southern South America. Fruits, for the most part, from central US to central South America. The only requirement for growing crops is fertile soil, water and sunshine. A fertile fallow soil with adequate water and sunshine will produce abundantly(exceedingly).

[Ariarates]

I would prefer to have a reference that is available to read. I am unable to find any reference as to where I can find this particular book . It doesn't seem to come up when I do a Google search or use my library's search function. Where can I find it?

If you Google "Matichenkov" you can find quite some stuff that is freely available. I'm looking forward to visiting the library because it's a very exciting topic (well, if you think agriculture is exciting at least). I left academia in 1998 and most of the advances with active Si were made since 2000, as far as I can tell.

[Ariarates]

Ariarates exhibits a lack of understanding of agriculture with this approach. All one has to do is look at the range where these crops are presently grown to see that this premise is flawed.

Except that today's varieties are not the same as those in 600 BC, and agricultural knowledge and practices have advanced quite a lot since that time as well. I'm not sure that looking at present day ranges justifies your conclusion. The premise may be flawed, but not for the reason you cite.

[Kemara]

In any case, I am familiar with the role of Si in plant stress tolerance, but it seems that your statement is (as you referenced the OP), "significantly overstated".

If I had made the statement “all biotic and abiotic stresses” pre-2004 it could have been an overstatement though not significantly so, as even then it was clearly understood that the role and function of Si in plants was as a defense system. The big problem with making a statement such as mine pre-2004 was that the mechanisms were not clearly understood, even Prof. Emmanuel Epstein didn’t understand the mechanisms of Si referring to it as “a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma”, he knew what Si did, but he like everyone else didn’t know how. As an example see Liqun, H. Eugeniusz, S, Shangjun, X. 2006. Advances in silicon research in horticultural crops. This paper details the role of Si in protection against biotic and abiotic stresses and goes on to discuss specific examples, such as insect, fungal, disease, temperature, water, salt and heavy metal stress and even mentions the role of Si in regulating Phosphorus absorption. However, the mechanisms are not really discussed in this paper, primarily because the mechanisms were not really known and to this day are not widely known.

However, despite the lack of wide dissemination, the mechanisms are now understood and are illustrated in a basic diagram in post 64. Very basically whenever a plant experiences stress (any and ALL stresses) this activates the plants defense system at the cell level, which system is facilitated by Si. Without sufficient levels of Si the plant defense system does not work effectively, with sufficient levels of Si (Active Si/Monosilicic Acid, not total Si) the plant has the mechanical, biochemical, physiological and chemcial defense ability to deal with any biotic or abiotic stress. The mechanisms were first presented in 2008. See Biel, K. Matichenkov, V. Fomina, I. 2008. Role of silicon in plant defensive system. 4th International Conference, Silicon in Agriculture. Further advances in understanding the mechanisms of Si in plant defense have occurred since then.

My partiality to Matichenkov’s work has no bearing on its validity, are you suggesting otherwise?

[Ariarates]

This paper details the role of Si in protection against biotic and abiotic stresses and goes on to discuss specific examples, such as insect, fungal, disease, temperature, water, salt and heavy metal stress and even mentions the role of Si in regulating Phosphorus absorption.

I read about those two today, quite amazing stuff. Vlad's patent also looks very promising, do you know more about that?

[Kemara]

I read about those two today, quite amazing stuff. Vlad's patent also looks very promising, do you know more about that?

Yes I know all about that, it really is quite amazing and is only the very tip of a very big iceberg.

[Ariarates]

Yes I know all about that, it really is quite amazing and is only the very tip of a very big iceberg.

All kidding aside, that would really be interesting to invest in - only 3.5M is a tad high for me :-(

[cacheman]

If I had made the statement “all biotic and abiotic stresses” pre-2004 it could have been an overstatement though not significantly so, as even then it was clearly understood that the role and function of Si in plants was as a defense system. The big problem with making a statement such as mine pre-2004 was that the mechanisms were not clearly understood, even Prof. Emmanuel Epstein didn’t understand the mechanisms of Si referring to it as “a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma”, he knew what Si did, but he like everyone else didn’t know how. As an example see Liqun, H. Eugeniusz, S, Shangjun, X. 2006. Advances in silicon research in horticultural crops. This paper details the role of Si in protection against biotic and abiotic stresses and goes on to discuss specific examples, such as insect, fungal, disease, temperature, water, salt and heavy metal stress and even mentions the role of Si in regulating Phosphorus absorption. However, the mechanisms are not really discussed in this paper, primarily because the mechanisms were not really known and to this day are not widely known.

However, despite the lack of wide dissemination, the mechanisms are now understood and are illustrated in a basic diagram in post 64. Very basically whenever a plant experiences stress (any and ALL stresses) this activates the plants defense system at the cell level, which system is facilitated by Si. Without sufficient levels of Si the plant defense system does not work effectively, with sufficient levels of Si (Active Si/Monosilicic Acid, not total Si) the plant has the mechanical, biochemical, physiological and chemcial defense ability to deal with any biotic or abiotic stress. The mechanisms were first presented in 2008. See Biel, K. Matichenkov, V. Fomina, I. 2008. Role of silicon in plant defensive system. 4th International Conference, Silicon in Agriculture. Further advances in understanding the mechanisms of Si in plant defense have occurred since then.

My partiality to Matichenkov’s work has no bearing on its validity, are you suggesting otherwise?

My issue with your statement had more to do with its conclusive breadth in the context of this thread which is primarily a crop eco-physiology discussion. The implication from your statement is that when plants are grown in natural soils containing this particular mineral, they will be protected against all biotic and abiotic stresses. There is no mention of the relative nature of protection that relies on the specific environment in which the plant is growing. Much of the applied research (greenhouse and field) with monosilicic acid has occurred under standard conditions. Even in those conditions, plants were susceptible on some scale to pathogens, heat, etc.. Comparing a plant growing in an Si deficient soil versus the same species/ecotype growing in an Si rich, but generally unfavorable environment (increased humidity, temperature, disease or insect pressure, etc..) does not mean that the plant will fare better. There is an upper limit of protection potential for every plant that will differ among ecotypes. That would explain the differences often seen in germination, growth, flowering, etc. of reciprocally planted conspecific ecotypes in natural soils. Your statements on this thread can be boiled down to the fact that plants in general will grow better in living soils vs dead soils. This is true, but it doesn't necessarily trump ecotypic adaptation or selective breeding for specific environments. If you have research that shows otherwise, then I would truly be interested to see it.

cacheman

[Calm]

Yes I know all about that, it really is quite amazing and is only the very tip of a very big iceberg.

So are the implications here that we might be able to dispense with a lot of the long term environmentally damaging fertilizers and pest controllers by instead just providing this mineral in sufficient quantities?

[bookofmormontruth]

There is only one person touting this argument and it has been thoroughly debunked. The fact that no one here countered the statement means they're ignorant of Book of Mormon geography rather than that they are in agreement. Notice the twisting of verse by a cherry picked dictionary definition, not unlike the cherry picked definition for river "head" by some. The desire to stretch distances including before they even tilled the earth to possibly "100 miles" means a hemispheric mindset is at work.

Consider its use in the following example:

18

And Noah went

forth

, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons’ wives with him:

19 Every beast, every creeping thing, and every fowl,

and

whatsoever creepeth upon the earth, after their kinds,

went

forth

out of the ark.

20 ¶

And Noah builded an altar unto the Lord;

and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. (Gen.

Are we to assume that Noah traveled "inland" possibly "100 miles" before building his altar and offering the burnt offerings?

Royal Skousen discusses the modernization of the text in 1 Nephi 18:23 and says:

"But in two cases (1 Nephi 18:23 and Alma 52:18), the preposition

to

was changed to

at

[in the 1981 LDS edition], which seems strange when referring to lands." (Royal Skousen,

Analysis of Textual Variants of the Book of Mormon

, Pt. 1, 2004, p. 357)

Skousen therefore recommends that the original 1830 version of 1 Nephi 18:23 be restored:

"Summary: Maintain in 1 Nephi 18:23 the original [i.e. 1830] preposition

to

in the phrase 'arrive to the promised land.'" (Ibid., p. 394)

Thus, the original reading of the text makes it clear that "went forth" simply meant they walked off the boat:

"and it came to pass that after we had sailed for the space of many days we did

arrive

to

the promised land

and we went forth upon the land and did pitch our tents and we did call it the promised land." (1 Nephi 18:23, 1830 edition)

Honestly, who said anything about a sandy beach? The text doesn't.

There has been a concerted effort to realign the text with lands not supported, whether by denying official church history or by denying church canon. Where John Sorenson did well was to show the smallness of BoM lands which the OP ignores entirely. Where Sorenson failed miserably was to ignore fulfilled land promises which are congruent with church history and canon. It is high time geography enthusiasts respect what Sorenson, Clark and FAIR suggest and that is to begin with an Internal Geography Map FIRST. Second, identify fulfilled land prophecies - a Spiritual Map. Fit the Internal Map within the boundaries of the Spiritual Map, i.e. Colonial America.

Please read the entire thread to find out why I posted what I did, not just jumping in with no context. I am not "touting" anything, let alone geography.

[Kemara]

My issue with your statement had more to do with its conclusive breadth in the context of this thread which is primarily a crop eco-physiology discussion.

Well I dont think we really have an issue then because my position from the very beginning was not that the plants grown by the Lehites would be totally immune to all stresses. My stated position was/is that it was fairly safe to assume that if the seeds were planted in uncultivated soil that there would be sufficient levels of the required mineral elements “at least to minimize biotic and abiotic stresses.” (post # 58)

I stand by my statements unless you can demonstrate why eco-physiology somehow negates the natural defense system of a plant. The argument of eco-physiology is largely a stress issue and seeds transported from Jerusalem to Mesoamerica don’t suddenly lose their ability to combat stress if the required mineral elements are available to them. Stress hits a plant, it doesn’t matter one bit what the stress is, how the stress was generated, where it was generated or why it was generated, the plant will begin to create non-specific antioxidants which are used to combat stress in a general method until it is able to identify and synthesize specific stress proteins to defend itself from that exact specific stress.

The implication from your statement is that when plants are grown in natural soils containing this particular mineral, they will be protected against all biotic and abiotic stresses.

This is correct and the references I have provided support this statement unless you can demonstrate that there are some biotic or abiotic stresses that the plants system cannot defend itself against. Again let me be clear, I am not now nor did I ever advocate 100% protection against stresses, I advocated that 100% of stresses would be addressed and could result in at least minimizing the stresses enough to allow the Lehite seeds to grow exceedingly.

There is no mention of the relative nature of protection that relies on the specific environment in which the plant is growing.

That is just the point though, the specific environment is not an issue if a plant can protect itself against the stresses of any environment. What specific environment exists and what specific stress exists that will nullify the plants ability to generate non-specific antioxidants and specific stress proteins?

Much of the applied research (greenhouse and field) with monosilicic acid has occurred under standard conditions.

Define standard conditions. Do you consider the research on temperature extremes, water deficiency, heavy metal toxicity, sodium toxicity, nutrient deficient soils to be standard conditions? The very reason we know how the plant defense system reacts to stress is that the plant is placed in non-standard conditions.

Even in those conditions, plants were susceptible on some scale to pathogens, heat, etc..

Some scale yes, which was my position all along. Further, where trials were carried out on commercial farms were the plants/crops able to produce, relative to the size of the trial plots, a crop sufficient for market while under stress and in some cases under extreme stress? The answer to that question would be yes, further indicating that the “grew exceedingly” reference in the text of the Book of Mormon is quite plausible.

Comparing a plant growing in an Si deficient soil versus the same species/ecotype growing in an Si rich, but generally unfavorable environment (increased humidity, temperature, disease or insect pressure, etc..) does not mean that the plant will fare better.

This doesn’t even make sense so I can’t really comment.

There is an upper limit of protection potential for every plant that will differ among ecotypes.

Upper limit of protection potential? No, there is no limit on a plants potential to protect itself. In a natural environment I would agree with you but research has shown (and been patented) that a plant can have a perfect protection system, that through its natural biochemical defense mechanism it is possible to immunize a plant against any stress before the plant even experiences the stress.

If you have research that shows otherwise, then I would truly be interested to see it.

I have already provided the research, let me sum up:

1. The plant recognizes the initiation of stress, any stress.

2. The plant searches the internal data base to determine the best defense against the stress.

3. The plant begins to synthesize both specific and non-specific stress-protective compounds such as antioxidant enzymes, stress-proteins, glutathione and phenols etc.

4. The plant mobilizes these stress-protective compounds to fight the stress.

5. The stress protective compounds are utilized by one or more of the plants mechanical, biochemical, physiological and chemical defense mechanisms.

[BOMG]

Please read the entire thread to find out why I posted what I did, not just jumping in with no context. I am not "touting" anything, let alone geography.

I did read it and I am alerting you to the fact that your supposition was already dealt with, so why throw it in here? Why hold on to your mental model that Book of Mormon lands were large at all?

[Kemara]

So are the implications here that we might be able to dispense with a lot of the long term environmentally damaging fertilizers and pest controllers by instead just providing this mineral in sufficient quantities?

There is no might about it, it is being done as I type these words. With specific reference to monosilicic acid its use will result in the reduction of required application rates of synthetic chemical fertilizer's, standard reduction is 15 to 25% in the first 12 to 18 months and will get up to a reduction of 50 to 60% in 18 to 36 months.

Plants will always require Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Potassium, and for optimum health and production a host of other beneficial elements. However, there is absolutely no need to use synthetic chemical fertilizers, there are far better alternatives that are cheaper for the farmer, virtually free of heavy metals and other toxic elements, provide better nutrition for the plant and will result in a significant increase in prodcution for less cost, a real win-win situation...except of coure for the synthetic chemical manufacturers. But even then we can throw in a few secret herbs and spices and improve synthetic chemical fertilizer. Take Urea fertilizer for example, in general standard Urea is 60% plant available, 20% will be leached and the remaining 20% will become fixed (the poor old farmer has no idea that 40% of what he buys is useless)and has a mercury, lead and cadmium content that can exceed the maximum allowable concentration. Throw in a few secret herbs and spices and hey presto a day later you have Urea that is now 80% plant available, 10% will leach and 10% will become fixed and probably most important to all of us is that up to 99% fo the heavy metals have been detoxified.

With regards to synthetic chemical pesticides, they can be reduced 100% in 24 to 36 months.

[cacheman]

Well I dont think we really have an issue then because my position from the very beginning was not that the plants grown by the Lehites would be totally immune to all stresses. My stated position was/is that it was fairly safe to assume that if the seeds were planted in uncultivated soil that there would be sufficient levels of the required mineral elements “at least to minimize biotic and abiotic stresses.” (post # 58)

It's statements like this: "With the right biological and mineralogical elements in the soil, all and I mean ALL production limiting factors can be overcome." that might have led me to interpret your statement the way I did.

I stand by my statements unless you can demonstrate why eco-physiology somehow negates the natural defense system of a plant. The argument of eco-physiology is largely a stress issue and seeds transported from Jerusalem to Mesoamerica don’t suddenly lose their ability to combat stress if the required mineral elements are available to them. Stress hits a plant, it doesn’t matter one bit what the stress is, how the stress was generated, where it was generated or why it was generated, the plant will begin to create non-specific antioxidants which are used to combat stress in a general method until it is able to identify and synthesize specific stress proteins to defend itself from that exact specific stress.

I said nothing about eco-physiology negating the natural defense system of a plant. The two concepts can both impact the success of a plant in any given area. If I take a plant from a boreal climate, pot it up in its native fertile soil, and grow it in Ecuador, will it be as successful? How about if I supplement it with monosilicic acid? Will its eco-phyiological adaptations be trumped by its natural defense system?

This is correct and the references I have provided support this statement unless you can demonstrate that there are some biotic or abiotic stresses that the plants system cannot defend itself against. Again let me be clear, I am not now nor did I ever advocate 100% protection against stresses, I advocated that 100% of stresses would be addressed and could result in at least minimizing the stresses enough to allow the Lehite seeds to grow exceedingly.

That's fair enough.

That is just the point though, the specific environment is not an issue if a plant can protect itself against the stresses of any environment. What specific environment exists and what specific stress exists that will nullify the plants ability to generate non-specific antioxidants and specific stress proteins?

You keep using terms like nullify and negate as if I've implied such. Of course, the plants ability to generate non-specific antioxidants and specific stress proteins are not nullified by differing environmental conditions. However, compounded exposure to abnormally high (in terms of the plants ecotypic adaptation) levels of fungal spores, saturated soils, heat, etc.. have the potential to tax the plant beyond its ability.

Some scale yes, which was my position all along. Further, where trials were carried out on commercial farms were the plants/crops able to produce, relative to the size of the trial plots, a crop sufficient for market while under stress and in some cases under extreme stress? The answer to that question would be yes, further indicating that the “grew exceedingly” reference in the text of the Book of Mormon is quite plausible.

Were any of the crop cultivars used in the experiments not already used and adapted in the region? BTW, I'm fine with the 'plausibility' of the 'grew exceedingly' reference.

This doesn’t even make sense so I can’t really comment.

Let me re-state the scenario. You have two plants of the same species; ecotype 1 and ecotype 2. Assume they are both growing in native soils that are rich in all the biological and mineral components necessary to have a fully functioning defense system. Now take ecotype 1, and plant it in ecotype 2's native habitat and vis versa. Would they necessarily grow and develop the same way they would in their native habitat?

Upper limit of protection potential? No, there is no limit on a plants potential to protect itself. In a natural environment I would agree with you but research has shown (and been patented) that a plant can have a perfect protection system, that through its natural biochemical defense mechanism it is possible to immunize a plant against any stress before the plant even experiences the stress.

I guess I'm not following you here. Are you saying that there is an upper limit of protection potential in natural environments, but not in crop systems? When you say 'perfect protection system', what does that really mean. How far does that go? Do cultivars or ecotypes differ in the levels of their abilities to combat stresses?

I have already provided the research, let me sum up:.

The research I've seen shows cultivar differences in their stress responses even after supplemented with monosilicic acid.

[Robert F. Smith]

When the Lehites left Jerusalem, they brought along seeds which they planted on arrival in the New World. Here’s the gist of the story:

1 Nephi 8:1. And it came to pass that we had gathered together all manner of seeds of every kind, both of grain of every kind, and also of the seeds of fruit of every kind.

1 Nephi 18:6. And it came to pass that on the morrow, after we had prepared all things, much fruits and meat from the wilderness, and honey in abundance, and provisions according to that which the Lord had commanded us, we did go down into the ship, with all our loading and our seeds, and whatsoever thing we had brought with us, every one according to his age; wherefore, we did all go down into the ship, with our wives and our children.

1 Nephi 18:23. And it came to pass that after we had sailed for the space of many days we did arrive at the promised land; and we went forth upon the land, and did pitch our tents; and we did call it the promised land. 24. And it came to pass that we did begin to till the earth, and we began to plant seeds; yea, we did put all our seeds into the earth, which we had brought from the land of Jerusalem. And it came to pass that they did grow exceedingly; wherefore, we were blessed in abundance.

Now, it’s not easy to make seeds from one geographical region grow in another. To “grow exceedingly”, the climates of these regions must match pretty closely. This means that we can use these verses as a clue to determine where the Lehites could have landed, planted their seeds and, straight off the bat, achieved abundant yields. Here’s a fairly decent and easy to use map of climate zones. Based on the BoM texts above, what New World locations do you think are likely candidates?

We must first establish what sort of seeds were brought by Lehi & Co. They may even have been seeds from South Arabia, gathered just before sailing, in order to replace those used en route. One can examine a book such as the 1980 United Bible Societies' Fauna and Flora of the Bible for some hints.

Your climate map is too generic to be of use in any serious investigation. We need to know where the Lehites landed and where they first set up a serious settlement before they began planting seeds. The weather in Mexico and Guatemala varies across a tremendous range, covering nearly every growing environment, from the hot and humid wetlands of lowland Tehuantepec andTabasco where the Olmecs flourished to the temperate altiplano of Guatemala -- which would have been ideal for plants from the Jerusalem region. In fact Sorenson has suggested that the altiplano was the land of first inheritance for the Nephites. Certainly, 1 Nephi 18:24 does not tell us that they remained next to the Ocean. The "it came to pass" is a narrative device which can include an indeterminate period of time, most likely written long after landfall -- which your "straight off the bat" notion ignores.. Too many unknowns of this type can bollix our inquiry.

[Robert F. Smith]

http://bookofmormongeography.org/trees

The Book of Mormon records that the Jaredites brought fruit seeds to the New World:

And they did also carry with them deseret, which, by interpretation, is a honey bee; and thus they did carry with them swarms of bees, and all manner of that which was upon the face of the land, seeds of every kind. (Ether 2:3)

This quote at your link is quite misleading, referring as it does solely to travel in the Old World. Not until chapter 6 do the Jaredites travel to the New World. Honey bees already existed in the New World in any case, so there was no need to transport them by closed barge.

[rodheadlee]

When the Lehites left Jerusalem, they brought along seeds which they planted on arrival in the New World. Here’s the gist of the story:

1 Nephi 8:1. And it came to pass that we had gathered together all manner of seeds of every kind, both of grain of every kind, and also of the seeds of fruit of every kind.

1 Nephi 18:6. And it came to pass that on the morrow, after we had prepared all things, much fruits and meat from the wilderness, and honey in abundance, and provisions according to that which the Lord had commanded us, we did go down into the ship, with all our loading and our seeds, and whatsoever thing we had brought with us, every one according to his age; wherefore, we did all go down into the ship, with our wives and our children.

1 Nephi 18:23. And it came to pass that after we had sailed for the space of many days we did arrive at the promised land; and we went forth upon the land, and did pitch our tents; and we did call it the promised land. 24. And it came to pass that we did begin to till the earth, and we began to plant seeds; yea, we did put all our seeds into the earth, which we had brought from the land of Jerusalem. And it came to pass that they did grow exceedingly; wherefore, we were blessed in abundance.

Now, it’s not easy to make seeds from one geographical region grow in another. To “grow exceedingly”, the climates of these regions must match pretty closely. This means that we can use these verses as a clue to determine where the Lehites could have landed, planted their seeds and, straight off the bat, achieved abundant yields. Here’s a fairly decent and easy to use map of climate zones. Based on the BoM texts above, what New World locations do you think are likely candidates?

Doesn't that map show humid continental where Larry Polusen describes the probable area of the cradle of Nephite civilization? Near the Grijalva River.