Quote:
Originally Posted by Janet Tweedy[_2_]
On 02/01/2013 08:14, Chris Hogg wrote:
I wonder how they know, because methods of nutritional analysis in the
1920's must surely have been relatively crude, if they existed at all,
compared with modern techniques. And does it necessarily mean that
growing your own today is any better than buying in supermarkets, or
is it that if there is a difference between now and then, that it's
due more to the varieties grown than the growing conditions, in which
case growing your own may not produce anything better.
Well that's why I wondered. I thought it might be becuaue they push too
many nutrients into the plants making them grow too fast too large too
quickly whereas vegetables grown slower, or of older, less economically
viable non-uniform types retain more goodness? or do they pick them
before they can develop properly?
|
The link I posted above suggested variety, growing conditions and measurement problems as possible links. I think Janet's making good points. Growing them fast will give higher water content (which has been measured in fruit), breeding for uniformity, appearance and disease resistance means you won't necessarily retain nutrient levels, and picking early undoubtedly does have an effect on taste, so quite possibly on nutrient values too.
I've been impressed the last couple of years how home grown tomatoes even of varieties not noted for taste can taste much more intense than supermarket ones. And if taste is affected, I would expect nutrient levels to be affected too.
__________________
getstats - A society in which our lives and choices are enriched by an understanding of statistics. Go to
www.getstats.org.uk for more information