Live data from Hacker News

Estimates that mineral levels in vegetables have dropped by up to 90% since 1914

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

81–90 of 315 posts

Re: Estimates that mineral levels in vegetables have dropped by up to 90% since 1914

#81
post #2

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?

Because submitters are lazy and HN only has two admins/moderators who can correct the link.

Re: Estimates that mineral levels in vegetables have dropped by up to 90% since 1914

#82
This happened due to extermination of soil life through modern farming practices of heavy tilling, fertilizing and monoculture crops. Dead soil is more susceptible to erosion and requires ever increasing amounts of synthetic fertilizer to grow anything. More soil has been lost from the US than the amount of food that has been produced. Soil fertility can be returned to historical levels by changing farming practices to make living soil. The benefits of treating the soil as a living organism include increased fertility, water infiltration, moisture retention, and nutrient availability as well as decreasing or eliminating synthetic fertilizer requirements.

https://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

#83
It'd be cool to see a comparison of common top-grade "organic produce" compared with produce from a farmers market and that grown from someone's own backyard. Granted, with a measure of time from harvest to measurement of mineral content.

Re: Estimates that mineral levels in vegetables have dropped by up to 90% since 1914

#85

I 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…

"increasing sugars and starches increases weight far better than any mineral count"

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

#86
post #2

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…

I used to run an organic farm experimenting with hydroponics and I did a ton of research on 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

#87

Earlier 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?

You're describing humanism. We'd probably end up looking a lot like an ant colony. Unfortunately, as a non-hivemind species, it is unlikely that we will ever have that level of cohesion.

Re: Estimates that mineral levels in vegetables have dropped by up to 90% since 1914

#89

Earlier 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.

> I find the aversion to ... 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
This isn't necessarily a bad thing. High iron consumption appears to be at the nexus of a vast array of diseases from colon cancer to Alzheimer's. As for Calcium there's really no evidence of it strengthening bones. And high consumption is probably causally increases CVD mortality.

[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/

Post reply on HN