The 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…
Hoe come HN so often spends the top comment correcting Some popular outlet? Why dont we get it straight from the source?
Estimates that mineral levels in vegetables have dropped by up to 90% since 1914
81–90 of 315 posts
Re: Estimates that mineral levels in vegetables have dropped by up to 90% since 1914
#82https://theweek.com/articles/554677/america-running-soil
This is a long video but it has completely changed my home gardening practices. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUmIdq0D6-A
Re: Estimates that mineral levels in vegetables have dropped by up to 90% since 1914
#83Re: Estimates that mineral levels in vegetables have dropped by up to 90% since 1914
#84Re: Estimates that mineral levels in vegetables have dropped by up to 90% since 1914
#85I don't think this is new or that unexpected, but it should be talked about. We use to breed plants based on both taste and size, taste being altered significantly by mineral contents. Currently, we mostly only breed plants based on weight, taste doesn't factor into it, and increasing sugars and starches increases weight far better than any mineral count. Heirloom plants are generally considered luxury products and s…
No, increasing bioavailable silica content (like potassium silicate addition) increases weight far more than any starch or sugar could possibly do.
Re: Estimates that mineral levels in vegetables have dropped by up to 90% since 1914
#86The 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…
What I found, organic does not mean healthier. In fact, a larger percentage of food related illnesses are reported for organic foods than foods without the organic label, which itself is controversial and misleading. This is largely due to the types of fertilizer used. Animal waste is used to fertilize organic foods. Yes, that is a fact. Organic foods can also use BT pesticides, which are the same chemicals in GMO crops where the BT is produced inside the plant.
The nutritional content also depends on many factors, including what types of fertilizers are used. Are those fertilizers available to be absorbed by the plant. It also varies by variety. Some plants, especially strawberries are better grown outside in the soil than in hydroponics. That was a rare case. I also read many studies on nutritional content of plants grown hydroponically vs organically and some studies found some varieties were more nutritional when grown organically, others when grown hydroponically.
The reality is, the industry is so competitive and the studies are funded by folks with an agenda, so the data leaves me skeptical on both sides.
Only 17 elements are required to grow a plant and these elements can be provided entirely through hydroponics. From my research, hydroponic vegetables, for the most part, are actually healthier for people to consume than organic vegetables according to the science, but there is a stigma that since hydroponics is produced by science and technology and the industrial farming complex that it is worse for our bodies.
The research indicates though that hydroponic plants can more easily absorb nutrients, they are healthier and better able to resist fungus and insects, so not only are they more nutritious, but they don't need fungicides, pesticides or herbicides to be sprayed on them. Plus, plants can actually absorb salmonella and other bacteria into the plant from composted manure, which even when washed can still infect the human gut.
Re: Estimates that mineral levels in vegetables have dropped by up to 90% since 1914
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
What if we had one world religion where everyone's goal in life was to become infinitely loving and utterly selfless? Would we grow food for eachother differently? Would we be compensated differently for doing so?
Re: Estimates that mineral levels in vegetables have dropped by up to 90% since 1914
#88Here is a good resource on growing your own food with maximum nutrition. http://janabogs.com/
Re: Estimates that mineral levels in vegetables have dropped by up to 90% since 1914
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ten thousand years of agriculture is an assumption?
People have put up with a lot of shit -- literal and metaphorical -- over the last ten thousand years. I don't understand the assumption that it simply must be better than anything chemistry has to offer, and I find the aversion to measurement and control inherently suspicious.
Interesting. Could you please expand on that? Personally, I find the desire to control inherently suspicious.
Re: Estimates that mineral levels in vegetables have dropped by up to 90% since 1914
#90[1] http://nautil.us/issue/67/reboot/iron-is-the-new-cholesterol [2] https://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h4580 [3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3336363/