Isn’t this at least easy to fix? Required amounts of dietary minerals are minuscule: 50 mg iron, 15 mg zinc and less than 2 mg of the other transition metals and P. Presumably fertilizer could include trace amounts of these elements without substantial cost increases? (Ca/K/Mg are already in fertilizer.)
Estimates that mineral levels in vegetables have dropped by up to 90% since 1914
11–20 of 315 posts
Re: Estimates that mineral levels in vegetables have dropped by up to 90% since 1914
#12The link got that actual paper is much better than a sentence or two on LinkedIn. The paper’s title isn’t as catchy to put in nicely. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6163803/ From my link: >It is important to note that the USDA mineral content of vegetables and fruits has not been updated since 2000, and perhaps even longer, given that the data for 1992 was not able to be definitively confirmed for this…
If organic food actually had a noticeably higher mineral count than nonorganic, I would start eating it. But I don’t see why organic food would actually have more minerals. Organic doesn’t mean healthier it just means that it uses different kinds of pesticides, to my knowledge
Re: Estimates that mineral levels in vegetables have dropped by up to 90% since 1914
#13Well there are some that say that minerals on vegetables are not bio-available for the human digestive system, so in the end doesn't make a lot of difference.
> some that say
who?
Re: Estimates that mineral levels in vegetables have dropped by up to 90% since 1914
#14Here is a good resource on growing your own food with maximum nutrition.
Re: Estimates that mineral levels in vegetables have dropped by up to 90% since 1914
#15Well there are some that say that minerals on vegetables are not bio-available for the human digestive system, so in the end doesn't make a lot of difference.
Minerals in meat come from bioaccumulation of minerals in feed, though, so the problem works its way up the food chain.
Re: Estimates that mineral levels in vegetables have dropped by up to 90% since 1914
#16The link got that actual paper is much better than a sentence or two on LinkedIn. The paper’s title isn’t as catchy to put in nicely. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6163803/ From my link: >It is important to note that the USDA mineral content of vegetables and fruits has not been updated since 2000, and perhaps even longer, given that the data for 1992 was not able to be definitively confirmed for this…
If organic food actually had a noticeably higher mineral count than nonorganic, I would start eating it. But I don’t see why organic food would actually have more minerals. Organic doesn’t mean healthier it just means that it uses different kinds of pesticides, to my knowledge
Presumably, using natural fertilizers would make a difference, as you'd expect a wider range of minerals than in straight haber-process fertilizer. I don't know if natural fertilizers are always a requirement for organic food, though.
Re: Estimates that mineral levels in vegetables have dropped by up to 90% since 1914
#17Another reason to roll out Enhanced Olivine Weathering, get some minerals back into the dirt.
http://www.innovationconcepts.eu/res/literatuurSchuiling/oli...
Re: Estimates that mineral levels in vegetables have dropped by up to 90% since 1914
#18Soil depletion: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/soil-depletion-an... I have a friend who refers to vitamins as "expensive pee". He means taking vitamin pills when you eat a good diet containing fruits and veg is unnecessary because your body will excrete out the excess. I like to point out to him that fruits and veg are not what they used to be.
Pretty much. My dad's a doctor and has always told me Emergen-C is just fizzy Tang, if you remember that stuff.
Re: Estimates that mineral levels in vegetables have dropped by up to 90% since 1914
#19The link got that actual paper is much better than a sentence or two on LinkedIn. The paper’s title isn’t as catchy to put in nicely. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6163803/ From my link: >It is important to note that the USDA mineral content of vegetables and fruits has not been updated since 2000, and perhaps even longer, given that the data for 1992 was not able to be definitively confirmed for this…
If organic food actually had a noticeably higher mineral count than nonorganic, I would start eating it. But I don’t see why organic food would actually have more minerals. Organic doesn’t mean healthier it just means that it uses different kinds of pesticides, to my knowledge
https://www.ams.usda.gov/publications/content/introduction-o...
>Soil Fertility: Crops more easily resist disease, survive drought, and tolerate insects when grown in good soil. Organic crop producers build soil quality by adding compost, animal manures, or green manures. As soil organisms break down these inputs, they convert nutrients into forms plants can absorb and create humus that sustains soil quality. Organic producers must not apply sewage sludge or biosolids to soil. Additionally, organic crop producers use cover crops to protect the soil from wind and water erosion. Soil-conserving practices include the use of cover crops, mulches, conservation tillage, contour plowing, and strip cropping.
Re: Estimates that mineral levels in vegetables have dropped by up to 90% since 1914
#20Growing food has turned into an engineering problem where people think you solve it by investing the least possible resources into it. Whatever the consumer will buy and you can produce as cheaply as possible wins the day. Our tasteless vegetables are like cheap Bose (no highs, no lows, must be Bose) speakers or pressed paper furniture at Walmart. On the surface they look like a vegetable should look, but the taste,…
> Growing food has turned into an engineering problem where people think you solve it by investing the least possible resources into it.
Our economic system optimizes for exactly this.