Nutrients in Fruits and Vegetables

Commodity Marketing

Tools

Nutrients in Fruits and Vegetables

Jan 1, 2019 | 14:36 1 Just wondering how often Canada Ag and Food Dept. tests for nutrients such as vitamins and minerals in the various fruits and vegetables we eat mostly bought from farms thousands of miles away especially in the winter months. Information on the internet shows you a list of nutritional values for most produce but how accurate and up to date are these figures, they could be from 1973.
One mineral that we are supposedly short of in our diet is magnesium because the soil in the root zone is depleted from years of growing vegetables. Are vegetable producers in areas like California similiar to grain farmers and just soil test for ph--n--p--s , but maybe why would you add trace minerals if you were not getting paid for it. I don't think they get paid a premium for their spinach if it has higher level of iron or potassium in it. Reply With Quote
farmaholic's Avatar Jan 1, 2019 | 15:01 2 You got to wonder about some of those tomatoes that have no color or flavor....and a texture that doesn't resemble tomatoes. Reply With Quote
Jan 1, 2019 | 15:37 3 Boron is another mineral that is depleted after exporting years of root crops. Sore aching joints? you might be lacking boron. I do like the idea of organic crops but after years of exporting nutrients without replacing them must leave the soil deficient in these important minerals. Organic farms say their crops are so healthy but will never show their soil test results. Reply With Quote
Jan 1, 2019 | 15:41 4
Quote Originally Posted by farmaholic View Post
You got to wonder about some of those tomatoes that have no color or flavor....and a texture that doesn't resemble tomatoes.
If you have the opertunity to eat wild berries like raspberries and strawberry’s you will realize the new varieties aren’t developed for taste. Reply With Quote
farmaholic's Avatar Jan 1, 2019 | 15:54 5
Quote Originally Posted by jimmy View Post
If you have the opertunity to eat wild berries like raspberries and strawberry’s you will realize the new varieties aren’t developed for taste.
Especially those wooden strawberries. And especially if they've been harvested before they've had much of a chance to vine ripen. Reply With Quote
Jan 1, 2019 | 15:56 6
Quote Originally Posted by farmaholic View Post
You got to wonder about some of those tomatoes that have no color or flavor....and a texture that doesn't resemble tomatoes.
yea , screwed up and bought a bag from no frills "s" hole . tasted like nothing
usually buy the ones from the cucumber man at co op , they are nearly as good as garden tomatoes .
sure miss those heritage ones we grow in garden , ugly looking buggers , but are they ever good Reply With Quote
Jan 1, 2019 | 18:38 7 The CFIA told me about 10 years ago that they don’t check imported fruit for chemical residues so I suspect they don’t test for minerals either. Just assuming. Reply With Quote
Jan 1, 2019 | 19:00 8 Interesting you ask this. I was at a conference just before Christmas, and the nutrient content of fruits and vegetables vs 50 years ago when they were originally measured is way down. The researchers attributed it to continuous cropping the same soil for decades and removing the nutrients, which is pretty obvious when you think about it. Reply With Quote
GDR
Jan 1, 2019 | 19:25 9
Quote Originally Posted by Taiga View Post
Interesting you ask this. I was at a conference just before Christmas, and the nutrient content of fruits and vegetables vs 50 years ago when they were originally measured is way down. The researchers attributed it to continuous cropping the same soil for decades and removing the nutrients, which is pretty obvious when you think about it.
Makes sense, but also think with modern heavy doses of fertilizer and newer varieties the plants just grow so fast and more volume and they just dont have the time and ability to draw the nutrients and build taste. Just water and fibre. Reply With Quote
Jan 1, 2019 | 20:33 10 It stands to reason that when we increase only the inputs that result in increased yield(N,P,K,S,CO2, water), while continuing to mine others that may have increased quality, but have no financial payback, that we would obtain high volumes of food containing less nutrients. Much like protein in wheat, all that is required is to compensate growers for whatever qualities are desired, and we will provided it.( and maybe some research into what is lacking to start with). Reply With Quote
Austranada's Avatar Jan 1, 2019 | 20:51 11 Food is fabricated soil fertility

https://robbwolf.com/2011/05/06/the-illusion-of-nutrient-dense-food/

http://www.bionutrient.org/site/news/nutrient-dense-crops

This is one of the main reasons we will be getting rid of glyphosate. Reply With Quote
Austranada's Avatar Jan 2, 2019 | 05:11 12 https://detoxproject.org/glyphosate/glyphosate-chelating-agent/ Reply With Quote
Jan 2, 2019 | 11:20 13
Quote Originally Posted by sumdumguy View Post
The CFIA told me about 10 years ago that they don’t check imported fruit for chemical residues so I suspect they don’t test for minerals either. Just assuming.
Spend all their fucking time testing everything we grow and do instead Reply With Quote
Jan 2, 2019 | 13:38 14 Austranada, can you explain this paradox. If the problem is mining the soil of nutrients, how is a system which places arbitrary restrictions on replacing nutrients (or at least makes it much more difficult and expensive) going to improve the situation? Reply With Quote
helmsdale's Avatar Jan 2, 2019 | 14:15 15
Quote Originally Posted by AlbertaFarmer5 View Post
Austranada, can you explain this paradox. If the problem is mining the soil of nutrients, how is a system which places arbitrary restrictions on replacing nutrients (or at least makes it much more difficult and expensive) going to improve the situation?
Its glyphosate... Haven't you gotten the memo? Reply With Quote
Jan 2, 2019 | 15:08 16
Quote Originally Posted by helmsdale View Post
Its glyphosate... Haven't you gotten the memo?
I got that memo, has been beating me across the head with it for months now, but he is also advocating organic, and I don't see how that solves the bigger problem of soil that is being mined. Reply With Quote
Austranada's Avatar Jan 2, 2019 | 17:14 17
Quote Originally Posted by AlbertaFarmer5 View Post
Austranada, can you explain this paradox. If the problem is mining the soil of nutrients, how is a system which places arbitrary restrictions on replacing nutrients (or at least makes it much more difficult and expensive) going to improve the situation?
Congratulations you appear to have attained liminality. Keep searching but go easy on all the assumptions Reply With Quote
Jan 2, 2019 | 19:54 18
Quote Originally Posted by Austranada View Post
Congratulations you appear to have attained liminality. Keep searching but go easy on all the assumptions
Well, thank you, I just learned something useful today. I had to look up the definition of liminality. But, sorry, it didn't just occur, I've been frustrated by conventional agricultures unwillingness to pay any premium for doing the right thing, and organics insistence on paying a premium only if you do all the wrong things.

I told you before, if you want to market my products with a system in between the two that rewards sustainable practices, produces healthy products(provably, and distinguishably so), and is based on science not emotion, I am all in. Reply With Quote
Jan 2, 2019 | 20:11 19 I don't understand why the government would not do a random nutritional analysis of the fruits and vegetables from 5 or 6 locations and brands across Canada every 8 or 10 years. I'm sure they have employees who would jump at the chance to get out from behind their desks.
Consumers would then have some idea if they were meeting their required daily nutritional needs. From the little bit of research I've done, some supplied by others on this site, it seems that the numbers have dropped by 20 to 70 percent depending on the vitamin or mineral tested. Maybe that's what the government and producers are concerned about, if consumers knew the actual numbers they would just say to hell with fruit and vegetables, much to the horror of Health Canada. Reply With Quote
Austranada's Avatar Jan 4, 2019 | 20:01 20 http://www.ecofarmingdaily.com/soil-restoration-5-core-principles/ Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2019 | 21:30 21
Quote Originally Posted by Austranada View Post
http://www.ecofarmingdaily.com/soil-restoration-5-core-principles/
Interesting read. I agree with a lot of this, but I don’t understand this bit I found near the end of the article. Maybe someone can explain.



“ It is widely recognized that only 10-15 percent of fertilizer P is taken up by crops and pastures in the year of application. If P fertilizer has been applied for the previous 10 years, there will be sufficient P for the next 100 years, irrespective of how much was in the soil beforehand. Rather than apply more P, it is more economical to activate soil microbes in order to access the P already there. “ Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2019 | 23:49 22
Quote Originally Posted by workboots View Post
Interesting read. I agree with a lot of this, but I don’t understand this bit I found near the end of the article. Maybe someone can explain.



“ It is widely recognized that only 10-15 percent of fertilizer P is taken up by crops and pastures in the year of application. If P fertilizer has been applied for the previous 10 years, there will be sufficient P for the next 100 years, irrespective of how much was in the soil beforehand. Rather than apply more P, it is more economical to activate soil microbes in order to access the P already there. “
That is a very good ROI, somewhere between 1000% and 1500%, It appears as though it is not only the socialists who aren't good at math.

I tend to be very suspicious of anyone who thinks the laws of physics don't apply to them. Especially the first and second laws of thermodynamics.
Last edited by AlbertaFarmer5; Jan 4, 2019 at 23:59.
Reply With Quote
Austranada's Avatar Jan 5, 2019 | 08:32 23
Quote Originally Posted by AlbertaFarmer5 View Post
Well, thank you, I just learned something useful today. I had to look up the definition of liminality. But, sorry, it didn't just occur, I've been frustrated by conventional agricultures unwillingness to pay any premium for doing the right thing, and organics insistence on paying a premium only if you do all the wrong things.

I told you before, if you want to market my products with a system in between the two that rewards sustainable practices, produces healthy products(provably, and distinguishably so), and is based on science not emotion, I am all in.
https://civileats.com/2017/07/10/should-regenerative-agriculture-get-its-own-label/ Reply With Quote
farmaholic's Avatar Jan 5, 2019 | 08:42 24
Quote Originally Posted by AlbertaFarmer5 View Post
Well, thank you, I just learned something useful today. I had to look up the definition of liminality. But, sorry, it didn't just occur, I've been frustrated by conventional agricultures unwillingness to pay any premium for doing the right thing, and organics insistence on paying a premium only if you do all the wrong things.

I told you before, if you want to market my products with a system in between the two that rewards sustainable practices, produces healthy products(provably, and distinguishably so), and is based on science not emotion, I am all in.
I looked up the definition of liminality too, in layman's terms it's even akin to sitting on the fence. Not fully in one camp or the other, or in transition.

IMO, nothing wrong with being in that phase or place and maybe even staying there, you don't have as far to go in either direction you want to travel(and maybe back), being ABSOLUTELY in one camp or the other and seeing no benefits of the other side....well that space is reserved for ZEALOTS!

Nice word though, thanks Austranada. Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2019 | 12:13 25
Quote Originally Posted by farmaholic View Post
I looked up the definition of liminality too, in layman's terms it's even akin to sitting on the fence. Not fully in one camp or the other, or in transition.

IMO, nothing wrong with being in that phase or place and maybe even staying there, you don't have as far to go in either direction you want to travel(and maybe back), being ABSOLUTELY in one camp or the other and seeing no benefits of the other side....well that space is reserved for ZEALOTS!

Nice word though, thanks Austranada.
And isn't that a much more productive and useful state of mind to be in, than the idealogues on either extreme of most of these issues, for whom no amount of evidence or new information could ever change their minds? Agriville has many examples of such idealogues, on both sides of many issues, not the least of which is global warming. Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2019 | 12:43 26
Quote Originally Posted by AlbertaFarmer5 View Post
That is a very good ROI, somewhere between 1000% and 1500%, It appears as though it is not only the socialists who aren't good at math.

I tend to be very suspicious of anyone who thinks the laws of physics don't apply to them. Especially the first and second laws of thermodynamics.
It just seems strange to suggest that the solution to phosphorous availability and crop needs for the next 100 years is simply use what is available.

A test of average soil P ppm available/not available, compared to the removal would show the validity of this claim.

Is this the best solution going in the organics world for covering the Phos needs?

Albertafarner5 makes a valid point.

Why don’t consumers pay a premium for crops grown with wastewater recovered phos products like the crystal green.

We might be facing global shortages of traditionally mined phos reserves in the next 20 years yet we let this precious resource run off into waterways and into our oceans. We should be looking for solutions to this problem now and incentivizing consumers and government to act. The producers will follow suit when the $ premium shows up.

And that goes for bringing a legume into the rotation as well. A farm could greatly reduce its synthetically derived nitrogen use with a legume in the rotation, but if doesn’t pay then what’s the incentive.

Right now the producer could reduce in crop pesticide use, bring in more sustainable fertilizer practices and replenish micronutrients to the soil and subsequently the grains. He could even run all his machinery with epa clean burners, but at the end of the day he doesn’t receive any premium for his product.

Instead we’re told to flog the chem, pound the fert, grow grow grow regardless of anything, pumping all the $$ back into the big agribusinesses Corp. The next phase is a drive toward data driven ag and precision ag that will perpetuate the forcing of farmers into larger economies of scale requirements and less privacy and independence. I doubt this means better quality food and more $ back to the farmers, well maybe a few farmer but not the network of primary producers as a whole.

How do we compete with growing regions like Argentina, and Russia if they are adopting techs and innovating as fast as we are and the costs to produce are less.
Last edited by workboots; Jan 5, 2019 at 13:21.
Reply With Quote
Austranada's Avatar Jan 5, 2019 | 18:33 27
Quote Originally Posted by AlbertaFarmer5 View Post
And isn't that a much more productive and useful state of mind to be in, than the idealogues on either extreme of most of these issues, for whom no amount of evidence or new information could ever change their minds? Agriville has many examples of such idealogues, on both sides of many issues, not the least of which is global warming.
If organic or regenerative farming (Gabe Brown for example) is one extreme do you have the courage to describe what's wrong with the other extreme (mainstream ag). Your secateurs appear to be mysteriously sharp when cutting down the former then just as amazingly get dull when defending the latter. It really isn't productive to be a subjective fence sitter. Reply With Quote
farmaholic's Avatar Jan 5, 2019 | 18:42 28
Quote Originally Posted by Austranada View Post
If organic or regenerative farming (Gabe Brown for example) is one extreme do you have the courage to describe what's wrong with the other extreme (mainstream ag). Your secateurs appear to be mysteriously sharp when cutting down the former then just as amazingly get dull when defending the latter. It really isn't productive to be a subjective fence sitter.
Pros and cons Austranada, pros and cons of each.

How about focusing on the pros of each for a change, instead of slagging each method.

This is getting old! Reply With Quote
Austranada's Avatar Jan 5, 2019 | 19:38 29
Quote Originally Posted by farmaholic View Post
Pros and cons Austranada, pros and cons of each.

How about focusing on the pros of each for a change, instead of slagging each method.

This is getting old!
I hear you. Allow me to rephrase the question by simply substituting the word "wrong" with "right". This may elicit a more interesting response Reply With Quote
farmaholic's Avatar Jan 5, 2019 | 19:39 30
Quote Originally Posted by Austranada View Post
I hear you. Allow me to rephrase the question by simply substituting the word "wrong" with "right". This may elicit a more interesting response
It's all been discussed ad nauseam. Reply With Quote