new research debunks trad views on nutrition

[RoyalChick]

I've been working on gathering the data for such a thing for quite a while now. There is really very little pertinent work done as yet, that I can find at any rate.

However, I did recently discover that fresh young beech leaves - which my chickens are very fond of, and will be appearing all over the hedge shortly - are “sweet as a mild cabbage though much softer in texture” (Mabey Food for free 2022: 29 [originally published in the 1970s]). He suggests adding them to salads; no nutritional data though. Google throws up lots about beech nuts, nothing much about leaves.

I've also discovered that even the best websites are not necessarily reliable here. I have seen my chickens eating creeping buttercup leaves, which the RHS says is “poisonous to livestock” – but since my chickens are free to forage on whatever they like, and are not eating it through lack of choice, I trust their instincts; maybe protoanemonin is not toxic to chickens, or maybe there is very little sap in the bits they choose to consume.

We all forget that cultivated foods, as well as uncultivated foods, carry risks and can have unexpected consequences; for example, a whole nutmeg can bring on days of hallucinations according to Mabey (who appears to be writing from experience! 2022: 10). Most of what the chickens graze they just nibble, and the norm is a little bit of this and a little bit of that as they perambulate round the place.

I only just made the connection. It is Richard Mabey. I have the original edition of Food for Free. My mother was a big proponent and would send me out gathering stuff.

 

[Perris]

Google has changed. Once, it could be directed to what the person searching wanted. Sometimes it took creative search terms and/or looking through many pages of results. Now, it gives the same few results on page after page and is difficult to redirect.

Google scholar is better in both ways. At least, for topics that may have been formally researched.

Tell me about it. I was there The first few years were bliss. Then commerce arrived.

And you're right, I should remember to use google scholar. I don't bother with straight google as a search engine anymore; when I write it I'm using it as a verb, like hoover for vacuuming - or at least, that's what I'm thinking even if clumsy expression doesn't reflect it!

 

[Perris]

I only just made the connection. It is Richard Mabey. I have the original edition of Food for Free. My mother was a big proponent and would send me out gathering stuff.

Wonderful! Apparently it's never been out of print! He says in the preface to the 50th anniversary edition that it contains most of the content from the first, 1972 edition, with some excisions and additions. A first edition of such a long-lived book might be worth a bit, if you didn't tear it badly, dragging it through the bushes with you as a child

 

[RoyalChick]

Wonderful! Apparently it's never been out of print! He says in the preface to the 50th anniversary edition that it contains most of the content from the first, 1972 edition, with some excisions and additions. A first edition of such a long-lived book might be worth a bit, if you didn't tear it badly, dragging it through the bushes with you as a child

I need to look for it. I want allowed to take it with me. It stayed in the kitchen. I was never brave enough for mushrooms but our salads had all sorts of leaves and flowers!

 

[Perris]

Well done your mum! I am particularly impressed by the plates; the illustrations are excellent. He says it shouldn't be relied on for IDing - use a proper field guide - but actually it's better than some field guides I've seen. And has some very handy rules of thumb like 'avoid all fungi that have a white sheath surrounding the base of the stem, a white ring, and white gills' (because all the dangerous amanitas have that combo). And I didn't expect to find lichen, seaweed and shellfish in it as well.

I'm building quite a file on edible flowers. And who knew pollen was a good source of protein?

 

[Sally PB]

And who knew pollen was a good source of protein?

Bees and beekeepers.

 

[Perris]

very good! I was thinking as chicken feed, but you're right of course.

 

[U_Stormcrow]

The way they rush for it in preference even to a hung cabbage (normally a fan favorite) makes me think there is some nutrient in new grass that they are craving.

Maybe, maybe not. Seeds are a nutritionally dense source. Often only about 10% water. By the time its fully formed grass, it can be 90% water.

Just sprouted grass? Still more nutritionally dense than fully formed grass, less dense than seeds, but some of the more complex compounds have been broken down ("unpacked" if you will), into more bioavailable compounds. And yes, the seedlings may also be taking up minerals from the soil and generating certain vitamins.

The answer is likely combination of multiple factors.

 

[U_Stormcrow]

It would be interesting to have a similar table for common grasses and weeds.

I ran across one maybe two months ago (caveat, was a VERY short list) for some common pasture grasses. I've had to research weeds individually, and found the information to be both inconsistently available and largely incomplete. Unfortunately.

/edit and on that thought, i really need to eat lunch before getting back to work!

 

[Krugerrand]

I came across this open access article this morning which followers of this thread might find interesting:
Edelman M and Colt M (2016) Nutrient Value of Leaf vs. Seed. Front. Chem. 4:32
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fchem.2016.00032

This had me thinking of an article that just expired on Mercola.com.
Forever Chemicals Found in 88% of Kale Tested

Fortunately, I saved it to PDF, now attached for your reading pleasure.

The sample size is ridiculously low. But it still has some good information that can make one pause to think and appreciate home gardening.