Are wild "weed" edible plants more nutritious?

[pippo]

People,

 

I believe that a plant is a plant, and basically the system that plants utilize to grow/propagate/flourish generate the same chemical compounds whether its a cultivated one or wild.

 

BUT, I feel better if a wild one is better for you if ingested. At least, they are native, and dont need pesticides to grow healthy. Also, generate very green leaves vs some lighter green "lettuces", etc. What do yous think?

 

Thanks,

Weed eater

[Ethereally Luminous]

Well I don't have a scientific answer but I do enjoy eating wild vegetation most of it feels pretty good in the GI tract. You have to be careful with what you eat though because some of the plants can make you sick, I've noticed that bitter ones are more likely to have a bad effect than ones that are neutral or sweet in taste. I was chewing on something the other day that started sending sharp needle like pains into the back of my throat and all over my tongue.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

BUT, I feel better if a wild one is better for you if ingested. At least, they are native, and dont need pesticides to grow healthy. Also, generate very green leaves vs some lighter green "lettuces", etc. What do yous think?

Why should these factors make them healthier?

[lemur]

I wish there was more information about various edible wild plants for various locations. I tend to think it's better to err on the side of caution with ingesting anything. Certainly I've heard you should avoid all mushrooms and fungus unless you are absolutely an expert in distinguishing between like-appearance varieties where one is completely poisonous and the other is edible. If such databases of wild plants were available, you would expect some nutritional analyses to be given as well. I know you can look this up for most domesticated vegetables.

[John Cuthber]

One point to make is that weeds only "don't need pesticides to grow healthy" because nobody is trying to grow a field full of them

Also, "At least, they are native,"

Not really.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_knotweed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kudzu

 

A cabbage in a rose garden is a weed; so is a rose in a cabbage field.

 

A weed is defined by where it is, not what it is, so you can't make any generalisation about nutritional value.

 

Having said that, I suspect that eating a variety of different plants, rather than just one monoculture, would give a better balanced diet.

[lemur]

One point to make is that weeds only "don't need pesticides to grow healthy" because nobody is trying to grow a field full of them

Also, "At least, they are native,"

Not really.

http://en.wikipedia....panese_knotweed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kudzu

 

A cabbage in a rose garden is a weed; so is a rose in a cabbage field.

 

A weed is defined by where it is, not what it is, so you can't make any generalisation about nutritional value.

 

Having said that, I suspect that eating a variety of different plants, rather than just one monoculture, would give a better balanced diet.

Valid point about contextualism in weed-identification, but weeds also tend to be weeds because they grow and spread easily, often managing to harness resources better and faster than neighboring plants, which allows them to grow fast and eclipse sunlight. Grass is the worst because it's blades come up quickly as the rhizomes let it spread laterally without blooming and seeding. I have some wheat-grass seeds that I keep forgetting to plant, and the juice is delicious and supposedly very healthy. I really doubt that I won't have to do a lot of weeding to keep the other grass from weeding it out, though.

[pippo]

Tanks, people, for all your replies.

 

Yes, I understand the technical difference between what a weed is ...based on point of view. I still didnt think I had to explain.....figured you would know a weed plant in this context is a wild plant, not cultivated/whose seeds are not available say, at Home Depot.

 

Im my case, Im talking of years of experience eating just 2 or 3 leafy , dandelion "like" foliar/leafy plants. I dont take chances with unknowns. No fungi either......I learned years ago even experts can screw up. Slight bittering though, is not a big deal. Wild asparagus is wicked bitter, but Im still alive. I have pods of semi wild, and man, what a treat. Italians have probably the most developed "taste" for bitter flavors. One soft drink is actually called/marketed/labelled "Bitter", and is a huge seller in Italy. Yes, it is bad good for you as it has loads of sugar, not the bittering.

 

Why should these factors make them healthier?

 

Like I said, Cap- they are GREENER, and NO PESTICIDES APPLIED TO THEM (assuming they are not growing on a field that had DDT sprayed there 50 years ago, or theyre not in a Superfung Hazmat Waste Site). Just with that, you are already ahead of the game on nutrition. Beats white iceberg lettuce.

[Kikis]

Hello People

 

In my opinion the cultivated plant was well-borne from wild plant. The wild plant was similar with the weed. The weed and wild plant would take its status as disrupt plant when they growth between or among the cultivated plant or in among in human life. But some of the cultivated plant also well-borne from the weed, maybe they pulverized each other and made a new species, like some of the members from gramineae family. So weed status could be switch when its conveniences are found.

[lemur]

I don't know of any cultivated edible plants that don't require fertilizer even though nature seems to be full of wild plants that don't require any artificial fertilizer. Could this relate to their nutritional content?

[John Cuthber]

"Just with that, you are already ahead of the game on nutrition."

Nope,

Nutrition isn't the same as freedom from pesticides.

There are two facets to this.

Pesticides are chosen to have low toxicity to humans, and the regulations ensure that the quantities that get into the food chain are not an issue.

Just to repeat that

Pesticide residues in food don't harm people (except occasionally when someone screws up big-time).

 

Nutrition is a measure of the way in which food meets our requirements.

A lot of people in this world are short of calories and proteins.

Simply by selecting for improved yields we improve that aspect of nutrition.

 

"I don't know of any cultivated edible plants that don't require fertilizer "

No plant needs fertiliser, but all plants grow better when they are provided with the things they need.

Farmers use fertilisers to improve productivity. They would still do that whatever variety of plant they were growing.

 

"Italians have probably the most developed "taste" for bitter flavors. "

You might want to discuss that with these people

http://www.camra.org.uk/

 

In general, bitter flavours are a warning of toxicity.

 

 

There is some truth to the idea that weeds tend to be fast growing; however quantity isn't the same as quality. There's often a negative correlation between the two. Also, for most staple foods, we don't eat most of the plant-- we eat its food stores (seed, tbers etc) but the bit of weeds that grows fast is generally not the bet we would eat.

 

OK, the lettuce isn't a case of that; but nobody lives on lettuce.

[lemur]

"Just with that, you are already ahead of the game on nutrition."

Nope,

Nutrition isn't the same as freedom from pesticides.

There are two facets to this.

Pesticides are chosen to have low toxicity to humans, and the regulations ensure that the quantities that get into the food chain are not an issue.

Just to repeat that

Pesticide residues in food don't harm people (except occasionally when someone screws up big-time).

 

Nutrition is a measure of the way in which food meets our requirements.

A lot of people in this world are short of calories and proteins.

Simply by selecting for improved yields we improve that aspect of nutrition.

 

"I don't know of any cultivated edible plants that don't require fertilizer "

No plant needs fertiliser, but all plants grow better when they are provided with the things they need.

Farmers use fertilisers to improve productivity. They would still do that whatever variety of plant they were growing.

 

"Italians have probably the most developed "taste" for bitter flavors. "

You might want to discuss that with these people

http://www.camra.org.uk/

 

In general, bitter flavours are a warning of toxicity.

 

 

There is some truth to the idea that weeds tend to be fast growing; however quantity isn't the same as quality. There's often a negative correlation between the two. Also, for most staple foods, we don't eat most of the plant-- we eat its food stores (seed, tbers etc) but the bit of weeds that grows fast is generally not the bet we would eat.

 

OK, the lettuce isn't a case of that; but nobody lives on lettuce.

Do you grow a vegetable garden or are you speaking purely from the perspective of received knowledge? If so, you should give some thought to how much easier it would be to collect wild plants for fresh vegetable nutrition than to cultivate a garden that requires tilling, fertilizing, weeding, etc. I've also found that when you put a lot of effort into getting edible plants from a garden, you tend to appreciate every part of the plant more. Of course, I till, mulch, and weed by hand, and use minimal fertilizer so the yields I get seem relatively precious. Finding a crop of abundant nutritious wild edible plants would be like a miracle of divinity.

[John Cuthber]

Make up your mind. Is it easy to gather enough wild food

i.e. "you should give some thought to how much easier it would be to collect wild plants for fresh vegetable nutrition than to cultivate a garden"?

Or is it difficult, because the wild food tends to be widely dispersed

i.e.

"finding a crop of abundant nutritious wild edible plants would be like a miracle of divinity. "?

 

 

Actually, never mind. It probably doesn't matter what you or I as two individuals think.

Lets look at the whole of agriculture.

It seems that the farmers choose to grow stuff, rather than just hoping to gather "naturally" available plants.

I guess it could be that they are all fools who put in all that effort, when they could just rely on nature; but I doubt it.

[pippo]

Thanks, guys, for the opinions. Many good points.

 

"Italians have probably the most developed "taste" for bitter flavors. "

You might want to discuss that with these people

http://www.camra.org.uk/

 

hehe....this could become a debate like the one on deciding if British soccer/football is superior to the Italian League soccer.....LOL

 

Obviously, no one intends to compare gathering a few edible "weed" plants from one's yard and enjoying that meal to agribusiness's economy of scale. Toolate to go back to "Little House on The Prairie" for most Americans. Buffalo are gone too. Pretty soon, wild edible weeds will be gone perhaps too.

 

Still, on the idea of growing your own natural "wild" varieties, why wouldnt that work? I purposefully sow/spread the seeeds of my wilds in hope of a better crop next season. I could do the same with man made plants but instead choose to "cultivate" wild. When those wilds sprout/grow, hey, no need to do anything to them. Instead, had they been the man made, guess what- spray poisons/etc to get them to produce.

 

The issue with the "pasticide residue" is more than that of residual intake- its the exposure to higher levels WHILE one is applying them! Rubber gloves, carbon mask, safe rinsing of containers afterward, etc etc.

Edited March 6, 2011 by pippo

[John Cuthber]

Why can't you accept that all plants will grow without pesticides, and all plants will grow better with them?

That's true for cultivars and weeds.

The difference is not that we selected plants that need fertilisers and pesticides; we selected plants that produce more (and better) food.

[insane_alien]

i'm with john,

 

200 years ago all farming had the same basic crops (wheat, oats, potatoes, cabbage etc.) and they didn't have pesticides. now, at some point they started using them. and it wasn't for no reason at all.

 

most of what was farmed 200 years ago had a very low yield and pests could destroy crops to the extent that there was mass starvation it was a tenuous position. pesticides cured a LOT of problems that we don't see now because we use pesticides.

 

now, due to the widespread nature of pesticides, pest populations are kept low. so its likely that you could grow one or two fields per dozen without pesticides and not see the ravaging effects pests had 200 years ago.

 

now if all fields were made pesticide free we'd see one hell of a lot more pest. we'd essentially be back to the days when there WERE clouds of locusts so massive they blotted out the sun.

 

you may get a year or two of production before pests reach intolerable levels but rest assured that they'll get there. and it would be bad enough that even the people today yammering on about pesticides being bad and so on would order their use.

[SMF]

Insane_alien. Much of what you say is self-evident, but I would caution that there are quite a few criticisms of big agriculture because the overuse of pesticide combined with mono-cropping decreases species diversity and disproportionately reduces predators of pest insects so that the agriculture pest problem is actually worse. SM

 

 

[John Cuthber]

I'm quite happy to take pot shots at big agriculture.

But it doesn't have a lot to do with the OP.

 

 

(Some of big farming's problems are related- for example they agribusiness selects for yields and storage properties and doesn't care much about flavour or nutrition. That is related (vaguely) to the idea of looking at the natural versions to see if they provide a better product)

[SMF]

John, I was responding to the pesticide argument. Try doing some searches for polyculture or go to an a good ag school website (e.g. U.C. Davis) and search for organic farming to find where the science is going on this. For something like 12,000 years all of our food crops have undergone selective breeding for taste and yield. Some plants are unrecognizably different from their wild ancestors and there are very few wild indigenous foods in any area that are as good, and none that could support a 10th of our current population. In the last 50 or 60 years big ag has really begun to mess things up. SM

[FarmForest Research]

There are no Weeds per se. They are very nutritious..like Lambs Lettuce etc..A weed is a flower in a different ecosystem. J

[pippo]

hehe......I dont have all the answers. I know "weeds" are NOT vulnerable to "bugs". Cultivars/monocultures grown in square miles ARE, period. OK, we dont have to stick with my original querry exactly- its OK if we verge off a tad......on the issue of pesticides being necessary for todays population, its absolutely necessary, based on what I have read about world population/economies/energy/politics. Growing weeds that I happen to enjoy in my back yard a few days out of the whole year is not a ag farming model for feeding the world, Im sure we accept that here as Im not implying anyone has suggested this. The US, Canada, Australia are about maxed out- 6+billion people now.......And lets be thankful the ethanol scam is over for the most part.

 

 

On Johns point of [why do I feel I must use pesticides] since I grow just a few plants....well, hehe, you cant even grow a pot of the most aromatic basil without bugs attacking it big time- one pot or one square mile! I mean, yeah, if one wants to fuss daily with soap solution yes, it could be done. But man, every day after day, after.......

\

That s my whole point about weeds. No need to bother at all. They are hardy as He++.

Edited March 9, 2011 by pippo

[SMF]

I don't know, but I would like to know, how much extra care our cultivated plants need to get a reasonable yield. I suspect that the "weeds" are just as susceptible to pests as are the plants we cultivate. This is because I think that much of the pest and fertilizer problems come from growing plants as a monoculture that disturbs the ecological balance in small garden plots, but especially in big agriculture. I think the balance that is disturbed is between the "pests" and the natural predators. The book "One-straw Revolution, by Fukuoka, addresses this notion to some extent, but I tried his methods for home gardening a long time ago with not a lot of success. SM