Nutrient density
- Thread starter redback
- Start date
Meadowlark
No N-P-K Required
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2019
- Messages
- 2,719
- Reaction score
- 2,259
- Location
- East Texas
- Hardiness Zone
- old zone 8b/new zone 9a
- Country
I'm approaching the legendary 4 score in years of age.
Yes, without question, I attribute high nutrient density garden veggies as a main contributor to being able to work in this Texas climate...at any age let alone 80 years. In fact...a section of garden needs prepping for a summer cover crop so I'm off to get it done before it hits 100/100 in another couple of hours.
Thanks for your comments and interesting posts!
Meadowlark
No N-P-K Required
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2019
- Messages
- 2,719
- Reaction score
- 2,259
- Location
- East Texas
- Hardiness Zone
- old zone 8b/new zone 9a
- Country
Here's the spot in the middle I'm getting ready for cover...just produced a great corn crop.
To the far left is "Big rockpiles" row of peas on their second generation of soil building as a demonstration plot, and watermelon, sweet potatoes, cantaloupe, jicama and okra which is currently stocking the local food bank. A few tomatoes and cucumbers are still producing across the trellis...100/100 no problem even at 80.
To the far left is "Big rockpiles" row of peas on their second generation of soil building as a demonstration plot, and watermelon, sweet potatoes, cantaloupe, jicama and okra which is currently stocking the local food bank. A few tomatoes and cucumbers are still producing across the trellis...100/100 no problem even at 80.
I have pulled and dropped the stinging nettle, covered it with my compost and I am now layering the compost with the deep litter from the henhouse. The nettle has stopped any damage to broccoli or celery. So far so good. Now that the plants are mature and the nettle is no longer protecting them what will happen? Will they have immunity from pests and diseases. Will the sap have high 'Brix' ?
Stay tuned.
Stay tuned.
Attachments
One important thing to keep in mind is that these destructive agricultural chemicals and soil damaging practices probably haven't been used in your garden. Chances are, your home grown veg are just fine because your soil is fine. (Although doesn't mean it can't be improved).
I don't know if you're familiar with Charles Dowding? He's one of the leading experts in organic methods in the UK and a pioneer of 'no dig'. He has mentioned in the past that, for example, it's rare for garden soil to be lacking in nitrogen (unline aggricultural land). He's also mentioned that it's not the minerals in soil that matter but rather the soil life / bacterial action.
He doesn't use any fertilizers or minerals. He's a commercial grower and has been for years. All he does is put an inch of compost onto his beds every December. That's it. He succession sows so produces 2 or 3 crops from his beds - all without adding anything but that 1 inch of compost once a year.
All that said - I don't know if he's ever sent his veg for nutrient density testing. And unless you intend to do that with your veg - how ill you know if your attempts at improving nutrient density work? Yes, you can test your soil. But if Dowding is right (and I'm not saying he is) getting a check box against all those nutrients might not be particularly relevant. You would need to test the actual veg.
And it seems you CAN test the nutrient density of your veg with a refractometer. Not sure how reliable it is.
But if your goal is to improve nutrient density of your veg you need to be able to measure exactly that. Measuring soil or ticking boxes re gardening techniques isn't a good guide and could lead you down the wrong path.
But if your goal is to improve nutrient density of your veg you need to be able to measure exactly that. Measuring soil or ticking boxes re gardening techniques isn't a good guide and could lead you down the wrong path.
Yes - we did discuss this earlier and I have found the refractometer on google. So, testing coming up. Your video was good thanks. Christine Jones says you should get a stainless-steel garlic press to extract the sap. Even when we do the testing there is probably a need for independent testing, so I'm wondering if the university has someone who will test and sent written results. It's a bit suspect announcing your own findings.
Keen to hear how you get on with it.
Although I did find this article that talks of the shortcomings. It concludes that high brix DOESN'T equate to nutritious food. (The article discusses the shortcomings in detail).
Does Brix measure Nutrient Density of Food?
Is high Brix food better for you? Brix refractometer measures nutrient density in food but does it work? What does Brix really tell you about your food?
www.gardenmyths.com
Meadowlark
No N-P-K Required
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2019
- Messages
- 2,719
- Reaction score
- 2,259
- Location
- East Texas
- Hardiness Zone
- old zone 8b/new zone 9a
- Country
This is true...which is why I really appreciate it when others either validate or otherwise check findings.
For example, on the thread
"https://www.gardening-forums.com/th...-hugelkulture-in-containers.24560/post-246773" many folks like Chuck, Skinyea, Mr. Yan and many other great gardeners too numerous to list out corroborated my findings which to some on here were somewhat controversial but now seem to be widely accepted.
If it isn't repeatable by independent parties, then it is totally suspect.
Wow, that article deflates the usefulness of refractometers completely. I am essentially trying to live a disease-free life. I was hoping nutrition would be the answer. The celery I have grown this year is the best tasting I have ever grown. Everyone who is served a meal with it leaves no part of the celery. But it has a very mild taste. By taste I would have said it was weak in nutrients.Keen to hear how you get on with it.
Although I did find this article that talks of the shortcomings. It concludes that high brix DOESN'T equate to nutritious food. (The article discusses the shortcomings in detail).
Does Brix measure Nutrient Density of Food?
Is high Brix food better for you? Brix refractometer measures nutrient density in food but does it work? What does Brix really tell you about your food?
Frm an article on nutreint decline:
"Scientists say that the root of the problem lies in modern agricultural processes that increase crop yields but disturb soil health. These include irrigation, fertilisation, and harvesting methods that also disrupt essential interactions between plants and soil fungi, which reduces absorption of nutrients from the soil. These issues are occurring against the backdrop of climate change and rising levels of carbon dioxide, which are also lowering the nutrient contents of fruits, vegetables, and grains."
www.nationalgeographic.co.uk
Unless you're living on agricultural land I'd have thought your garden grown vegetables should be fine. Unless YOU have been using agricultural techniques on your land I see no reason why veggies grown today wouldn't be as nutrient dense as 70 years ago? Although the article does mention that more carbon dioxide in the air does lead to fewer nutrients absorbed by oxygen.
Moving forwards it SHOULD be enough to use organic methods. Use organic fertiliers (comfrey tea, worm tea), manures (green or animal), home made compost.
Also from that article:
"“By learning to grow plants bigger and faster, the plants aren’t able to keep up with absorption of the nutrients from the soil or able to synthesise nutrients internally,” explains Donald R. Davis of the University of Texas at Austin. "
AND
"Higher yield means nutrients from the soil must be distributed across a greater volume of crops, so in effect, the nutrients these fruits and veggies produce are being diluted. “Unfortunately, farmers get paid for the weight of their crops, so that incentivises them to do things that aren’t good for the nutrient content,” Davis adds."
So even if you use organic methods - whilst it might seem as if you're doing great when you grow huge veg, or if it grows more quicly - it might not be absorbing nutrients. You then have to wonder - can your soil be TOO nutritious leading unintuitively to less nutritious veg?
Another thing I remember reading (I'll try and track down an article) is that there is huge difference in nutreints between different varieties of veg. So even with poor soil you can get huge differences in nutreient density between two varieties of the same plant. First step for you in which case would be to select the right seeds!
It's an interesting topic. It always strikes me that we tend to spend a lot of tie pursing things without being certain those things lead to the results we're looking for.
"Scientists say that the root of the problem lies in modern agricultural processes that increase crop yields but disturb soil health. These include irrigation, fertilisation, and harvesting methods that also disrupt essential interactions between plants and soil fungi, which reduces absorption of nutrients from the soil. These issues are occurring against the backdrop of climate change and rising levels of carbon dioxide, which are also lowering the nutrient contents of fruits, vegetables, and grains."
Fruits and vegetables are less nutritious than they used to be
Mounting evidence shows that many of today’s whole foods aren't as packed with vitamins and nutrients as they were 70 years ago, potentially putting people's...
Unless you're living on agricultural land I'd have thought your garden grown vegetables should be fine. Unless YOU have been using agricultural techniques on your land I see no reason why veggies grown today wouldn't be as nutrient dense as 70 years ago? Although the article does mention that more carbon dioxide in the air does lead to fewer nutrients absorbed by oxygen.
Moving forwards it SHOULD be enough to use organic methods. Use organic fertiliers (comfrey tea, worm tea), manures (green or animal), home made compost.
Also from that article:
"“By learning to grow plants bigger and faster, the plants aren’t able to keep up with absorption of the nutrients from the soil or able to synthesise nutrients internally,” explains Donald R. Davis of the University of Texas at Austin. "
AND
"Higher yield means nutrients from the soil must be distributed across a greater volume of crops, so in effect, the nutrients these fruits and veggies produce are being diluted. “Unfortunately, farmers get paid for the weight of their crops, so that incentivises them to do things that aren’t good for the nutrient content,” Davis adds."
So even if you use organic methods - whilst it might seem as if you're doing great when you grow huge veg, or if it grows more quicly - it might not be absorbing nutrients. You then have to wonder - can your soil be TOO nutritious leading unintuitively to less nutritious veg?
Another thing I remember reading (I'll try and track down an article) is that there is huge difference in nutreints between different varieties of veg. So even with poor soil you can get huge differences in nutreient density between two varieties of the same plant. First step for you in which case would be to select the right seeds!
It's an interesting topic. It always strikes me that we tend to spend a lot of tie pursing things without being certain those things lead to the results we're looking for.
Here's that article I was talking about:
ag.umass.edu
To sumarize - they found that different varieties of a veg had huge differences in nutrients and that in part might be down to varieties being developed for taste, colour, desease resistance or yeild being less nutritious.
They do talk about the soil, but they mention that tests show that chemical fertilizers and organic slow release fertilizers both produce nutrient dense food equally, but compost does less well. Although they say compost does perform well eventually - it takes time (because the soil life takes time to feed on the compost and produce natural food for the plants).
And this makes me wonder about the benefits of growing cover crops or manure BETWEEN sowings as it seems that this can't possibly provide nutrients in the form that the plants need them. Long term it has benefit, but it won't benefit the crop you next.
CAFE Highlight: Growing Nutrient-Dense Vegetables | Center for Agriculture, Food, and the Environment | UMass Amherst
Empty calories. Depleted soil. Overproduction. By now, most Americans have heard reports that even as we’re eating more, we’re taking in fewer nutrients. Today’s ubiquitous fast foods and processed meals play a large part in the changing quality of our diets. But research also suggests that the...
To sumarize - they found that different varieties of a veg had huge differences in nutrients and that in part might be down to varieties being developed for taste, colour, desease resistance or yeild being less nutritious.
They do talk about the soil, but they mention that tests show that chemical fertilizers and organic slow release fertilizers both produce nutrient dense food equally, but compost does less well. Although they say compost does perform well eventually - it takes time (because the soil life takes time to feed on the compost and produce natural food for the plants).
And this makes me wonder about the benefits of growing cover crops or manure BETWEEN sowings as it seems that this can't possibly provide nutrients in the form that the plants need them. Long term it has benefit, but it won't benefit the crop you next.
Here's a video of Huw from youtube testing in real time his home grown produce vs shop bought, non-organic alternatives.
No conclusion is possible because the watery juiciness of the freshly picked vegetable can lower brix.
Good research thanks Susan.
Indeed.
And that of course raises the question - what do we mean by nutrient density?
A dehydrated (preserved) tomato is more nutrient dense than a freshly picked tomato (less water).
But intuitively we know the answer we're looking for isn't to dry all our food before eating it in order to increase nutrient density. Almosst certainly our crop will deliver fewer nutrients overall due to what's lost in the preserving process.
Arguably, if you're looking at the total nutrients in a crop from your garden then high volume of lower nutrient veg will win out.
You could look at nutrient density in terms of number of nutrients in relation to calories (i.e. reducing 'empty' calories). But anyone looking to be self sufficient needs to be getting high numbers of calories from their harvest. In this case, calories are probably king.
Nutrients per kg of harvest? But again, water content is going to have a massive skewing affect.
The only sensible way I can think of is to work out what nutrients you need (taking account of food you buy in) and then making sure your crop provides all you need in terms of individual nutrients and calories. After all, a vegetable loaded with iron is pretty useless to you if you already have plenty of iron in your diet.
I'm beginning to think that seeking improved nutrient density in our veg is a bit of a fools errand? Getting variety and calories from the crops we choose to grow is probably going to do more good?
Although of course - what interests you is part of the equation. Maxing out on nutrient density is a good goal to have purely for an academic exercise. As is getting the maximum possible health in your soil - even if it is beyond what you need to produce your food.
And that of course raises the question - what do we mean by nutrient density?
A dehydrated (preserved) tomato is more nutrient dense than a freshly picked tomato (less water).
But intuitively we know the answer we're looking for isn't to dry all our food before eating it in order to increase nutrient density. Almosst certainly our crop will deliver fewer nutrients overall due to what's lost in the preserving process.
Arguably, if you're looking at the total nutrients in a crop from your garden then high volume of lower nutrient veg will win out.
You could look at nutrient density in terms of number of nutrients in relation to calories (i.e. reducing 'empty' calories). But anyone looking to be self sufficient needs to be getting high numbers of calories from their harvest. In this case, calories are probably king.
Nutrients per kg of harvest? But again, water content is going to have a massive skewing affect.
The only sensible way I can think of is to work out what nutrients you need (taking account of food you buy in) and then making sure your crop provides all you need in terms of individual nutrients and calories. After all, a vegetable loaded with iron is pretty useless to you if you already have plenty of iron in your diet.
I'm beginning to think that seeking improved nutrient density in our veg is a bit of a fools errand? Getting variety and calories from the crops we choose to grow is probably going to do more good?
Although of course - what interests you is part of the equation. Maxing out on nutrient density is a good goal to have purely for an academic exercise. As is getting the maximum possible health in your soil - even if it is beyond what you need to produce your food.