new research debunks trad views on nutrition

[NanaK]

Sorry, wanted to add this link.

https://www.feedipedia.org/node/70

When I researched a bit I read this

Bakery wastes may contain ground plastic bags as the bakery wastes are unwrapped mechanically (McGregor, 2000).

I don't think this is good.

 

[3KillerBs]

Likely focused more on back of house collection.

I figure that if it made economic sense to collect manufacturers' waste it would already be occurring.

The public face of "food recycling" is always the idea of collecting from stores and restaurants, but working in a store I just don't see how it be implemented in a practical manner without requiring a LOT of extra labor.

Sorry, wanted to add this link.

https://www.feedipedia.org/node/70

When I researched a bit I read this

Bakery wastes may contain ground plastic bags as the bakery wastes are unwrapped mechanically (McGregor, 2000).

I don't think this is good.

That's exactly what I would have expected.

A lot of these feel good/sound good concepts fall apart in practical application.

 

[NanaK]

A lot of these feel good/sound good concepts fall apart in practical application.

Yes! If micro plastics are bad for the animals in the ocean why would they not be bad for the animals that are used for food.

What I can't find out is what company is buying and using this stuff?
That I'd really like to know.

 

[Brooks_]

I figure that if it made economic sense to collect manufacturers' waste it would already be occurring.

The public face of "food recycling" is always the idea of collecting from stores and restaurants, but working in a store I just don't see how it be implemented in a practical manner without requiring a LOT of extra labor.

Meat departments have been doing it for many years. I don't think it would cause more labor cost in the back of house areas for other departments/venues. I agree though, that front of house areas could be problematic.

 

[Perris]

we seem to have come full circle; I posted about bakery waste and plastic in feed in #148 above, https://www.backyardchickens.com/th...trad-views-on-nutrition.1567953/post-26622044

 

[Perris]

Something new to contribute is an informative podcast on protein (provocatively titled 'everything you thought you knew about protein is wrong') involving one of Spector's team in London and Prof Gardner from Stanford:

 

[U_Stormcrow]

21:00 in, nothing new here. Not sure I'll make all 48 minutes - other priorities here. Back around 3-4 min, he said the body doesn't care whether you get your AAs from plants, animals, or suppliments - which I'm sure will offend some. In fairness, I believe he overstated - there are some proteins which the body absorbs not entirely broken down into the component AAs - but for the very vast majority of proteins, the generalization is accurate. They are the exception that proves the rule.

When you get to this point, 60g is about 1/8 lb for those that aren't familiar with the math. and the 60g number is based on someone weighing about 75kg (165 lb) at 0.8g / kg.

...and we won't talk about my diet, you really shouldn't aim for my eating habits - I won't pretend they are healthy.

 

[U_Stormcrow]

31 min is, still nothing new - more amusing is what's being skipped and glossed.

But I'm not in the protein bars, shakes and energy drinks camp for humans. Neither am I in the bonus mealworms and BOSS camp for poultry.

 

[U_Stormcrow]

Up, 32 min in, starts to get interesting. We finally start getting into AA profile.

 

[U_Stormcrow]

40 min in, still nothing that disagrees the main thrust of my typical comments re: poultry nutrition (and we won't get into how much of this can be directly translated to chicken nutrition, because thus far most of it can almost w/o footnote or caveat).