new research debunks trad views on nutrition

[Tired old Rooster]

The problem, I suppose, is in the logistics and labor costs of handling it.

And keeping it free of packaging, etc.

We throw out a shocking amount of food at the grocery store where I work, but I can't imagine how it could possible be salvaged because it would require special handling, extra refrigeration, etc.

And farmers would sue if anything was spoiled and made their animals sick.

We are destroyed by our own success. I made friends with one of the ladies, whose Dad owns the supermarket I shop at. She has no problem giving me veggies that no one will buy anymore because they are iffy looking. They get to have a good customer who faithfully shops with them, the chooks get tasty stuff that is not bad, the lawyers get no work. In America, the lawyers are killing you.

 

[U_Stormcrow]

This would destroy almost all nutrition. That's the reason that most pet foods contain so many additives (as in vitamins and minerals) because the food is killed during processing. Nutrition has to be added back in.

Wow. steaming at 100 degrees c for 30 min destroys almost all nutrition???

That's a shock to all those cutures that made beer as a way to preserve some of the nutritional value of their grain over long months when it might otherwise have spoiled. Now I want to try all these recipes, see if there is any nutrition left after a 90 min boil

I wonder how so much of the world has lived on steamed rice for so many centuries?

As with so much else, its complicated. I believe you have greatly overstated the effects of heat and time in staking out your position.

 

[Tired old Rooster]

Wow. steaming at 100 degrees c for 30 min destroys almost all nutrition???

That's a shock to all those cutures that made beer as a way to preserve some of the nutritional value of their grain over long months when it might otherwise have spoiled. Now I want to try all these recipes, see if there is any nutrition left after a 90 min boil

I wonder how so much of the world has lived on steamed rice for so many centuries?

As with so much else, its complicated. I believe you have greatly overstated the effects of heat and time in staking out your position.

When you say a hundred degrees, do you mean Celsius?

 

[Canadian Wind]

Wow. steaming at 100 degrees c for 30 min destroys almost all nutrition???

That's a shock to all those cutures that made beer as a way to preserve some of the nutritional value of their grain over long months when it might otherwise have spoiled. Now I want to try all these recipes, see if there is any nutrition left after a 90 min boil

I wonder how so much of the world has lived on steamed rice for so many centuries?

As with so much else, its complicated. I believe you have greatly overstated the effects of heat and time in staking out your position.

Okay, I may have exaggerated a touch.

The point was though that the reason so many 'nutritional' additives are in animal feed is because they destroy it by high temperature cooking/sanitizing. If food waste was to be made available for livestock, especially from private homes, it would amount to the same thing. So many regulations would be put in place that we'd end up with basically what we have now.

 

[U_Stormcrow]

When you say a hundred degrees, do you mean Celsius?

yes, 100 degrees c. To steam at 100F you would need to be in a partial vaccuum (around 1 psi), and to steam at 100K you would need to be in a hard vaccuum.

 

[Tired old Rooster]

yes, 100 degrees c. To steam at 100F you would need to be in a partial vaccuum (around 1 psi), and to steam at 100K you would need to be in a hard vaccuum.

Then I fail to see a problem with the process. That is largely what we attempt to achieve when we cook most of our food and I am still alive and definitely not suffering from malnutrition. By those terms, the Irish should have gone extinct a few years after they discovered fire.

Bear in mind though that fresh is best.

 

[U_Stormcrow]

Okay, I may have exaggerated a touch.

The point was though that the reason so many 'nutritional' additives are in animal feed is because they destroy it by high temperature cooking/sanitizing. If food waste was to be made available for livestock, especially from private homes, it would amount to the same thing. So many regulations would be put in place that we'd end up with basically what we have now.

So many additives are present in pet food because they either don't exist in the other ingredients in sufficient quantity, or because the highly variable nature of agricultural products makes it such that trace vitamin and mineral levels can not otherwise be guaranteed.

Methionine is a great example. Its a limiting amino acid, its in high demand by mammals such as cats, dogs, and humans, avians like our chickens (of course) and it is not abundant in most plant products.

Another example? Selenium is a trace mineral which is readily abundant in wheat grown in the upper midwest - but largely absent in the same grain grown in the SE Washington region.

Providing, in essence, a "multivitamin" in the feed helps ensure certain minimums are met, whatever the variable levels present in the other ingredients.

B vitamins and C vitamins are pretty easily destroyed by heat. The fat soluable vitamins are not (A, K, E, D), nor are minerals, so the typical additives will often focus on those important B vitamins. There are some water soluable minerals, but depending on heating method, there may not be enough water involved that there is any appreciable loss.

 

[U_Stormcrow]

Then I fail to see a problem with the process. That is largely what we attempt to achieve when we cook most of our food and I am still alive and definitely not suffering from malnutrition. By those terms, the Irish should have gone extinct a few years after they discovered fire.

Bear in mind though that fresh is best.

I was responding to another poster who strongly suggested that half hour at 100c destroyed almost all nutrition by offering some common contrary examples to disprove his (or her) thesis.

 

[Perris]

Time to remember the initial point, especially the last two assertions:

According to Tim Spector, Food for Life: the new science of eating well, Jonathan Cape 2022: xiv
Myths that have benefited the food industry and which we should now dispel include: all calories are equal, low-calorie foods are good, high-fat foods are bad, artificial sweeteners are healthy, high levels of processing are harmless, and food and vitamin supplements are as good as real food.

 

[EddieSalita]

Time to remember the initial point, especially the last two assertions:

I think that is very much correct. Synthetic vitamin, mineral, nutrient supplements are not as good as real food. I'm not sure anyone is making the assertion that they are.

To my way of thinking it can sometimes come down to; Is a less than optimum (ie: deficient) amount of a particular natural form of a particular nutrient better than an optimum amount of that nutrient if a significant percentage of that nutrient is synthetic, or a homogenised processed natural source.... such as synthetic methionine or blood meal?

I haven't found a clear answer on that as yet.

As mentioned in the case of Methionine which we know is important in chickens. Which we feed primarily a plant based diet is lacking without making special effort to increase its availability via animal based foods, excellent free ranging opportunities etc... which you clearly point out in your article.

Combine that with somewhat irresponsible home made recipes on youtube etc... that are clearly lacking in some areas, and a desire to feed our chickens as cheaply as possible, and we have a recipe for people ending up with problems.

Which is why threads like this are great. More understanding equals better choices.