Did67 wrote:b) "dressed" and "covering" vegetables (cabbage, beets, Swiss chard, artichokes, tomatoes, etc.):
c) vegetables "not covering enough" (onions, garlic, leeks, etc.)
Adrien (ex-nico239) wrote:
I had also had shoots on boots but it was not folichon in terms of vigor.
I have a few questions that have bothered me for years ... (I don't often intervene here, I mostly read and I learn)
These are serious questions, but which are intangible elements that will perhaps appeal to the depths of your knowledge and experience? Unless you already have an answer to that?
I read somewhere that “hardy” fruits and vegetables (by that mean those from the days before WWII) had more than ten times the nutrients than those from intensive agriculture today ( the one “pampered with glyphosate”, if we dare say that!)
We all already know that any cultivation experience done using “sloth's vegetable garden” techniques is already extraordinary in terms of flavor. And necessarily point of view nutritional value itou, since growing under ideal conditions which prevail after letting the soil do its job without disturbing it (mycelium, nature of the soil depending on the crop, any natural inputs required, etc.)
This is where my dilemma begins.
Coming exclusively from this type of “ideal” permaculture, let's take: a new carrot, VS an average, VS one at full maturity and VS one that has passed full maturity, but which is left in the soil which then serves as “ guard mamger ”.
Let's also take: two fully ripe apples, a very small one that grew a little in the shade (but ripe), and a large, the largest possible, from the same tree and compare them!
Assuming that any apple or vegetable (small or large), of the same species and from the same direct genetic group) is potentially capable of all giving birth to other healthy congeners, and whatever their starting volume, this therefore seems to indicate that the “energy and nutrients” they contain - even if they seem less numerous in parts per 100 grams in a smaller subject - provide all the energy required sufficient to perpetuate the species and would produce the same result.
So, for us, is it the same if we eat a small carrot or a big one (same for apples, etc ...)?
Is there a concentration of nutrients in small subjects, or will a larger subject rather have more?
For example, how much vitamin C per 100gr from small apples VS the quantity of vitamin C per 100gr from larger fruits of the same tree?
If the reasoning is correct and a small subject has all the elements (equal maturity), then the amount of vitamin C per 100g from large apples, should be less than that from small apples (relatively the same weight).
And not exclusively in terms of nutrients, but in terms of “vitality”? (Which is a subjective notion that is difficult to describe, in the sense that if a small subject manages to perpetuate the species like a large one, it is because there must be a concentration of “something” which allows it) Here what do we inherit: small subjects vs big ones? It is undoubtedly something observable in mountain where the conditions are less favorable? Plants have to struggle more and use their energy to get stronger, which in the end also has to strengthen us even more when we eat them, right?
What do you think?