Topic: Are vegetables less nutritious than in the past?

[lonely moa]

This articl in SA seems to say so.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=soil-depletion-and-nutrition-loss

We have understood this for two decades now and have farmed accordingly on our property.   This article is hardly news.

[Plastique]

Hmm.

[David E.]

Well then we just let 1/2 the World population die and problem solved.

[lonely moa]

Well then we just let 1/2 the World population die and problem solved.

Sortng out the food production dilemma could be an easy technical fix but the politics and private interests would get in the way. 

[quokka]

I don't think this is a Sci-am article, it may have originated from here http://www.emagazine.com/earth-talk/vitamin-depleted-vegetables. While it does pick out the conventional breeding techniques that selectively pick for yield, pest and disease resistance over nutritional value; the claims that organic methods (whatever they are) can correct the supposed nutritionally depleted soils of modern agriculture and increase vegetable nutrition is way off the mark. Conventional agriculture regularly test their soil for nutritional condition and apply fertilizers to make up shortfalls; exactly the opposite of what this article suggests. The claim then makes the jump that these 'poor' soils are responsible for nutritional depletion of vegetables, where concentration of minerals and vitamins in vegetables have very little to do with soil condition.

Ironically organic growers have been crapping on about how their low nutrition soils produce more nutritious vegetables and have rejected GM breeding techniques that are now selecting for nutritional qualities, such as Golden Rice.

No, I'm not suggestion that soil health is not an issue; we are continually battling and balancing soil nutrition, pH, salt, erosion and compaction issues; but that is modern agriculture.

[quokka]

This articl in SA seems to say so.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=soil-depletion-and-nutrition-loss

We have understood this for two decades now and have farmed accordingly on our property.   This article is hardly news.

What do you do that conventional agriculture doesn't?

[lonely moa]

I can only speak for ourselves.  We test for and apply a wider range of minerals than our neighbors. We keep more trees and shrubs as shelter for stock and insects.  We are far more weed tolerant.

We do not use soluable nitrogen fertiliser as it prevents the uptake of some minerals by plants.

None of our neighbors, of course, use ge crops as it is illegal and there is no commercial interest to establish such.

And organic farmers in NZ are fairly scientific as a whole.

[benschwab]

This discussion reminds me of the Old Rotation experiment at Auburn which is one of the coolest things I think there is.

Well then we just let 1/2 the World population die and problem solved.

What I've heard often is that if the US, Western Europe, and others eliminate their agricultural subsidies, other places in the world that have difficulty feeding their people would be able to develop sufficient and sustainable agriculture for themselves.  The suggestion is that the elimination of these subsidies would do more then anything else in decreasing world hunger (as well as other positive effects in these places).  I know this claim was made by my environmental economics professor in which this was part of her research and I've heard this or similar assertions on C-SPAN several times.  I wish I could remember the contexts for the C-SPAN authorities but I remember them being mostly authoritative in a legitimate way.

[quokka]

I can only speak for ourselves.  We test for and apply a wider range of minerals than our neighbors. We keep more trees and shrubs as shelter for stock and insects.  We are far more weed tolerant.

We do not use soluable nitrogen fertiliser as it prevents the uptake of some minerals by plants.

None of our neighbors, of course, use ge crops as it is illegal and there is no commercial interest to establish such.

And organic farmers in NZ are fairly scientific as a whole.

How many weeds you are willing to tolerate in the system is based on how many weeds your system ends up with. This is circular reasoning, that is, the way I farm produces x population of weeds, therefore I accept that weed burden. Organic farmers are able to remove less weeds and consequently are tolerant to that level.

Mineral uptake is a complex system, for example, low pH will restrict phosphorus uptake but increase aluminium intake.  With Nitrogen though, non soluble nitrogen, 'often tied up in organic matter', is broken down by bacteria to ammonium before being broken down to nitrate nitrogen before being taken up by the plant. Whether the nitrate nitrogen originates from decomposing material or soluble fertilizers is irrelevant - they end up as exactly the same compound being taken up by the plant. Nitrogen is also a very expensive mineral to add to a crop, most farmers will utilize a combination of legumes, mineral fertilizers, organic matter and compost (in smaller systems) to supply their nitrogen needs. Basically they do what you do, as well as use mineral fertilizers.

Apart from that, nearly every farmer tests soil so as not to waste fertilizer, nearly all grow trees and shrubs that shelter stock and insects as part of their farm plan, and many don't use GE, because they haven't found a suitable place for it in their system due to price or variety unsuitability.

[lonely moa]

Apart from that, nearly every farmer tests soil so as not to waste fertilizer, nearly all grow trees and shrubs that shelter stock and insects as part of their farm plan, and many don't use GE, because they haven't found a suitable place for it in their system due to price or variety unsuitability.

You haven't been to mid Canterbury.  If it's going to rain tomorrow, the nitrogen goes on, GE is against the law (and nobody is trying hard to lose our non ge selling point) and, at a guess, 90% of the trees (shelter belts and forests) here have been removed on arable farms for dairy conversion and linear irrigation systems.  The tree removal has been exceptionally fast and thorough to have it done before a carbon penalty was enacted. 

[MikeHz]

I remember a farmer character in "Catch-22" who got rich not growing crops. He started out with a small farm, and the government paid him not to grow stuff. He was so good at not growing things that he was soon able to buy up more farm land and not grow even more stuff. He got very good at not doing anything. Eventually, he became one of the biggest growers in the state not growing crops.

[lonely moa]

I remember a farmer character in "Catch-22" who got rich not growing crops. He started out with a small farm, and the government paid him not to grow stuff. He was so good at not growing things that he was soon able to buy up more farm land and not grow even more stuff. He got very good at not doing anything. Eventually, he became one of the biggest growers in the state not growing crops.

I like that idea.  More time on the skis and bicycles.

[SimonW]

This articl in SA seems to say so.

Vitamin C is apparently adversely affected by nitrogen fertilizer in citrus trees, and I dare say other vegetables may have the same chemistry happening, but nitrogen fertilizers are better for production of other vitamins. I expect similarly complex details will apply to many nutrients.

I suspect we'll find organic farming has some nutritional benefits if we keep looking, at least compared to the cheapest food produced by the worst of the conventional farming industry, and possibly better than some of the hydroponic salad producers (although I'm confident the big hydroponic salad producers will fix anything that is found when it is found).

On the other hand the evidence to date is that most of us in the west are not nutrient deficient. That the variation within food is much less than the variation between foods. (e.g. if you want more nutrients eat more fruit and veg and less bread, cake, single grain breakfast cereals, crisps, fries etc), or methods of preparation (eat that fruit raw). So for most of us the answer probably doesn't matter even if it is true our veg is less nutritious.

[Shadow Of A Doubt]

I remember a farmer character in "Catch-22" who got rich not growing crops. He started out with a small farm, and the government paid him not to grow stuff. He was so good at not growing things that he was soon able to buy up more farm land and not grow even more stuff. He got very good at not doing anything. Eventually, he became one of the biggest growers in the state not growing crops.

That was the father of Maj. Major Major Major, and he was not-growing alfalfa.

Major Major's father was a sober God-fearing man whose idea of a good joke was to lie about his age. He was a longlimbed farmer, a God-fearing, freedom-loving, law-abiding rugged individualist who held that federal aid to anyone but farmers was creeping socialism. He advocated thrift and hard work and disapproved of loose women who turned him down. His specialty was alfalfa, and he made a good thing out of not growing any. The government paid him well for every bushel of alfalfa he did not grow. The more alfalfa he did not grow, the more money the government gave him, and he spent every penny he didn't earn on new land to increase the amount of alfalfa he did not produce. Major Major's father worked without rest at not growing alfalfa. On long winter evenings he remained indoors and did not mend harness, and he sprang out of bed at the crack of noon every day just to make certain that the chores would not be done. He invested in land wisely and soon was not growing more alfalfa than any other man in the county. Neighbors sought him out for advice on all subjects, for he had made much money and was therefore wise. "As ye sow, so shall ye reap," he counseled one and all, and everyone said, "Amen.

  What a book.

[lonely moa]

This articl in SA seems to say so.

Vitamin C is apparently adversely affected by nitrogen fertilizer in citrus trees, and I dare say other vegetables may have the same chemistry happening, but nitrogen fertilizers are better for production of other vitamins. I expect similarly complex details will apply to many nutrients.

I suspect we'll find organic farming has some nutritional benefits if we keep looking, at least compared to the cheapest food produced by the worst of the conventional farming industry, and possibly better than some of the hydroponic salad producers (although I'm confident the big hydroponic salad producers will fix anything that is found when it is found).

On the other hand the evidence to date is that most of us in the west are not nutrient deficient. That the variation within food is much less than the variation between foods. (e.g. if you want more nutrients eat more fruit and veg and less bread, cake, single grain breakfast cereals, crisps, fries etc), or methods of preparation (eat that fruit raw). So for most of us the answer probably doesn't matter even if it is true our veg is less nutritious.

I think I have read that most of us are deficient in magnesium and vitamin d and accordingly, don't metabolise calcim properly.  I'd guess that the fat soluable vitamines like a,d,e and k are often deficient in people due to the fear of fat that Keys, McGovern and company engendered in the american public several decades ago.  I dunno.