I make this thread to explore an interesting idea by @ThomasPicard in the thread WATERMELON 2026 European Focus Crop that is supposed to apply to plants in general, so I think it merits an independent discussion. The idea is:
… my taste assesment concentrating on aroma complexity goes with the lines of James White, John Kempf, Harriet Mella and others : yes it’s partially “subjective” but behind our taste buds, we reveal what a refractometer (the optical tool for brix level) cannot tell, and that is 100% correlated or aligned with the capacity of the plant to have tremendous soil-plant interactions, so to say having a good microbiome, good microbial relationships, a capacity to… “make friends”! In other words : “No soil intelligence, interaction = no aromatic complexity”, in principle.
I’m curious to read some scientific articles on this topic. Do you have some good references for James White, John Kempf, Harriet Mella and others to point to?
The videos and writings by Kempf about the “Plant Health Pyramid” concept are probably the best ressources, with level 3 and 4 being not achievable without biology. It’s where notably most if not all the aromatic compounds and antioxydants are produced. But it’s true it’s not scientific papers.
In reverse thinking : all scientists combined would have a hard time trying to get to his’ and AEA’s level of successes in the field, connected to knowledge. He frequently jokes about his delayed publications because of the lack of time. Sure his successes in many fields don’t prove that he’s right in that particular domain.
I think I’ve linked all directly or tangentially connected videos and podcasts in the “great video dump” topic, in general with a summary of what I found interesting in them.
The only one really publishing scientific papers is James White. Those 3 have shared different podcasts in which that line of thought (no great microbial interactions = no ability to get to complex aromas) comes a couple times as a certainty, but I’m sure the best is to reach out to them directly to ask for papers.
PSM stands for Plant Secondary Metabolites, so (notably) aromas. When you listen to Kempf what there is recapitulated in the “vigorous biology” (level 3 and 4) means the strength of the soil-plant interaction, so to say mediation and collaboration with a strong microbiome.
Another view at it, from the BRIX (= sugar) measurement standpoint, and PSM starting at a certain BRIX level, i.e. at a certain level of plant health. The whole presentation is incredible and simplifying everything at the end of the day, but specifically for PSM correlated to BRIX level (in the sap!) the main content starts at 34’30”: https://youtu.be/bnNOvA3diDU?si=37FqPX7DGh1j32TL
I’m reminded of the work @julia.dakin did reading through the report by the Bionutrient Institute. The Bionutrient Institute follow a similar idea to John Kempf, who has also spoken at their conferences. They were also interested in getting more hard data to support the idea that soil health raises nutrient density and secondary plant metabolites. They got data from many places in USA and Europe and found that, surely enough, regenerative farms with better soil health made more quality vegetables. But there was no correlation to nutrient density in the vegetables. The study is significant, because the Bionutrient Institute is heavily invested in that being true, so it actually falsified their own idea. Here’s the conclusion on the topic:
Is there a relationship between soil biological activity and food nutrition? Based on the current data, there is no obvious relationship between the relatively simple measurement of soil biological activity and any of the food quality measures. Simple XY graphs show no obvious trends either by antioxidants, polyphenols, or minerals (as examples, antioxidants by soil respiration and potassium by soil respiration shown below).
As I remember it, this was the starting point for Julia, who then went down a rabbit whole to disprove that study. I’m referencing what I learned from her work below.
Studies of soil health typically conclude that there can be a 0-30% benefit in nutrient density. Which means there sometimes is no correlation between soil health and nutrient density, and sometimes a little bit - remember that the maximum of 30% translates to a factor of 1,3 times as nutrient dense. Compare it to genetic differences. Some varieties contained 200 times more nutrients than others from the same species (again I believe this is from the same data as the report). That translates to a 20.000% increase in nutrient density. That’s a huge difference which almost makes soil health insignificant to nutrient density.
I will link to one of Julia’s videos below where she goes through the report referenced above. I wonder if @julia.dakin knows about any other scientific articles or evidence-based studies on this topic?
This might be little deceiving comparison as single genes affect just small part of nutrient density. At the same time one variety might have X times more of one, it might have Y times less of another nutrient. Whereas soil healt generally would be overall increase accross the board. All nutrients come from soil so in essence soil has to be the most important factor in terms of nutrient density. Comparisons all depend on what you are comparing. Maybe the other didn’t have as bad situation as it could have and the other not as good as it could have. Maybe the variety compared didn’t have that high potential in the nutrient density and so had more modest increase, whereas some other variety might have performed just as badly in the “bad soil”, but had increased benefit with the improved soil live.
I would say healthy soil sould be the first priority, as we are loosing it so rapidly, and then genes to adapt. Ofcourse there are bad soils that plants could, and in the short term should, adapt, but in the long term it doesn’t make sense keeping soils poor. I just listened to a podcast and there was a mention about the green revolution. The place in Mexico, where it all started, is now deserted (based on people there, can’t confirm that myself). Soil had been killed by the use of agrochemicos and too much tilling. That’s the point we are getting around the world when soils are too poor in the short term to be utilized for farming.
At the same time one variety might have X times more of one, it might have Y times less of another nutrient. Whereas soil health generally would be overall increase across the board.
This was more or less the assumption that the Bionutrient Institute set out to prove in the report referenced above and the correlation was often simply not there. It makes sense because we’ve heard the story so many times. Healthy soil with lots of available nutrients should lead to healthy nutrient dense vegetables. It doesn’t seem to be something that has backing in the scientific literature though. And when an actor that is commercially dependent on it being true goes out to prove it themselves and comes back with evidence to the contrary, that seems like a problem.
Of course there are bad soils that plants could, and in the short term should, adapt, but in the long term it doesn’t make sense keeping soils poor.
I agree, it doesn’t make sense to keep soils poor. There are lots of good reasons to have healthy soil. “Nutrient density” just doesn’t seem to be one of them, or at least the effect is relatively low when it is even there. This seems to me to be one of those things where we can easily agree on the practices - don’t disturb the soil, use mulch etc - and just be aware of the stories we tell about the impacts.
Problem is that making actually realistic comparison of the affect in soil microbial life isn’t viable and real tests aren’t done. Tests are only desingned in to compare producing crops financially viably, not to see how screwed we would be without chemical fertilizers or soil microbial life. For example soil microbes can’t utilize chemical fertilalizer so if you make comparison using them you shouldn’t see a big difference. It’s really hard to see a set up that would be realistic to get yield without sacrificing the set up. You should try soil that is completely devoid of microbial life vs soil that has had time to recuperate and fertilize both with organic fertilizer. Chemical fertilizant are just made to by pass soil microbial life so it’s effectively cheating. Current use of chemical fertilizants isn’t sustainable so it would have to be organic fertilizers, which in essence need soil microbial life to be released. So soil that is devoid of soil microbial life wouldn’t grow very well on the first year no matter how much organic fertilizers you put there.
something challenges me in this concept of the biological life of soils that would be linked to the aromatic complexity of plants…
I studied agronomy and the interaction of plants with soil during my studies, but a constant that is found everywhere on earth is:
the cultivated soils always naturally tend towards impoverishment, then give way to highly disturbed soil ecosystems with little microbiological life that establish ecosystem systems with strong plant biodiversity.
In these ecosystems, it is exactly where that we naturally find plants with a high content of essential oils, tannins… which therefore gives more aromatic complexity.
So I would rather tend to reproduce this natural pattern that says disturbed and poor soil = adaptation of plants and biodiversity = aromatic complexity
I’m sorry but I won’t participate in that topic as there are too many lines of thoughts intertwinning that come after what I wrote first, lines of thoughts which to some could create a “feeling” of understanding, or being on one side of the equation, a “truer” side based on some “well known truth”. Those lines of thoughts have been addressed and put in perspective by the Kempf, Mella, Kittredge or White in podcasts I linked over the past 6 months. My “synthesis” quoted by Malte was relative to those higher perspectives of people directly invested in breeding, analysing nutrient density - and notably of some particular compounds - and to how it relates to our taste buds, analyzing the nature of soil-plant interactions, of the difference between plants under stress vs. plant in optimal health, invested in agronomy, from back-yard gardening to industrial scale… And speaking at the crossroads of those domains.
I don’t have energy to put in to try to reestablish one clarity at a time, it’s too much : because already there would be a need to prepare a 1 or 2 hours presentation based on a couple days of work recapitulating those lines of thoughts : how they relate, do not relate, superimpose, or relate partially to each other. And how they lead to this synthetis (in that highligted quote) which I use practically in breeding : where aroma and plant health collide. And so there would be a need to relisten to everything one by one, reread contents, extract nuggests, rererence them, double check WITH the authors (calls, e-mails), to make sure context is well understood, read alternative publications, and synthetize. And for some : understandings well well passed the proof of concept phase (Plant Health Pyramid).
I can’t do that : if we were hundreds there I would absolutely prioritize that work in next weeks or months as it’s important to help the community to update its knowledge in a proper way, opening the debate, and again : put things in perspective. But it’s not the case: we’re just a few. This effort wouldn’t pay.
So if I go through former linked contents again I will link these nuggests there with time references, for everybody to double check and put in perspective afterwards. So to say : up to the individual to put the effort.
