new research debunks trad views on nutrition

[Perris]

 

[Perris]

someone I respect and admire has, on another thread, unintentionally encapsulated my view on chicken feed:
"chickens tend to pick and pluck out all the good stuff, ignoring the feed."
Freudian recognition that the feed isn't the good stuff.

And maybe that's enough to get this thread back on track after its beef by-products detour (thank you @Molpet )

 

[Molpet]

someone I respect and admire has, on another thread, unintentionally encapsulated my view on chicken feed:
"chickens tend to pick and pluck out all the good stuff, ignoring the feed."
Freudian recognition that the feed isn't the good stuff.

And maybe that's enough to get this thread back on track after its beef by-products detour (thank you @Molpet )

Yeah I am not sure if the byproducts was a good discussion or a distraction

 

[Perris]

a useful discussion of the difference between whole grains and processed grains, and of recognizing food as just one of several important inputs to a healthy life, for us and our chickens, in the Guardian today
https://www.theguardian.com/wellness/2025/mar/24/are-whole-grains-healthy

 

[Perris]

an article on the potentially huge variation in nutrient densities in 'the same' foodstuff this morning: https://wickedleeks.riverford.co.uk/features/does-soil-hold-the-key-to-better-nutrition/
e.g. "Dan Kittredge, founder of The Bionutrient Institute, a collective of scientists and researchers working together to define nutrient density, has tested thousands of samples of fruit and veg and found large variations in the nutrients they contain. For example, some carrots contained 40 times more antioxidants than others, meaning you would need to eat 40 of the lowest scoring carrots to match the antioxidant benefits of just one highly nutritious carrot."

They are testing all this in the lab of course, but it's not necessary; like our chickens, “We’ve evolved with the most sophisticated nutrient-monitoring systems that can ever be expected to exist – our noses and tongues.” As long as you don't let them get hoodwinked and hijacked by UPFs, of course.

 

[Altairsky]

I have always claimed that hydroponics fruit and vegetables sold in grocery stores cannot have the same nutrients of the fruit and vegetables grown on soil and manure.
It is scientifically impossible. You can't create nutrients from water and chemicals alone. Nutrients comes from mineral and organics compounds that you can only find on mother earth.
This is the proof.
Hydroponics strawberries taste like water, and they are as nutricious as water.

 

[Perris]

I have always claimed that hydroponics fruit and vegetables sold in grocery stores cannot have the same nutrients of the fruit and vegetables grown on soil and manure.
It is scientifically impossible. You can't create nutrients from water and chemicals alone. Nutrients comes from mineral and organics compounds that you can only find on mother earth.
This is the proof.
Hydroponics strawberries taste like water, and they are as nutricious as water.

It's not impossible, but it is more difficult to achieve good results with hydroponics than often assumed. You might find this article interesting:
https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/58552

 

[Krugerrand]

an article on the potentially huge variation in nutrient densities in 'the same' foodstuff this morning: https://wickedleeks.riverford.co.uk/features/does-soil-hold-the-key-to-better-nutrition/
e.g. "Dan Kittredge, founder of The Bionutrient Institute, a collective of scientists and researchers working together to define nutrient density, has tested thousands of samples of fruit and veg and found large variations in the nutrients they contain. For example, some carrots contained 40 times more antioxidants than others, meaning you would need to eat 40 of the lowest scoring carrots to match the antioxidant benefits of just one highly nutritious carrot."

They are testing all this in the lab of course, but it's not necessary; like our chickens, “We’ve evolved with the most sophisticated nutrient-monitoring systems that can ever be expected to exist – our noses and tongues.” As long as you don't let them get hoodwinked and hijacked by UPFs, of course.

The first thing I thought of was wine. It seems like wine producers have always known it's all about the soil. It's as if people assumed soil health magically only applied to growing grapes.

In some ways, science has brought us so far as a human race. In other ways, it caused us to lose so much knowledge. Some scientist says something 2, 10, 100 years ago and then it becomes set in stone as fact. So many times those things are later proven wrong. So many times, agendas drive false facts believed because 'it's science!'

 

[Perris]

It seems like wine producers have always known it's all about the soil.

I think quite a lot of people have known it: cheese producers for example. Everything with a 'DOP' or protected origin status.
And it's not scientists that push agendas, it is people with something to sell. Agrichemical businesses in the case of fertilizer and hydroponics systems I think.

 

[Krugerrand]

And it's not scientists that push agendas, it is people with something to sell. Agrichemical businesses in the case of fertilizer and hydroponics systems I think.

I mostly agree. Corporate Science is the most prevalent and the biggest danger of the bunch. Whoever is funding the science be it corporations or government, often get results they want to find.

For a long time, I foolishly went along with the 'science' that "possums eat ticks." Only after pulling some deer ticks off the kids and thought about just how small the deer ticks are, I started to question how a possum could find and eat something so tiny. Maybe there was a profit motive in that bad science .... but I haven't figured one out yet.

Incompetence is rampant in all aspects of life. Science is not immune to it and there are consequences to it. "Peer review" is supposed to keep that in check, but doesn't always.