Hi Carol and David,

> Actually, David doesn't read this list, but he also uses the same
> e-mail account, so there he is. :)
>
OK..Hi Carol!! ;-)

> > Where are you from..if you don't mind me asking? I'm in
> > Bad Kreuznach in Germany.
>
> I'm in Santa Cruz, California.  Why, may I ask, do you ask?
> (Aren't we all so polite! :D )
>
I ask because we may be communicating with each other for a long time.
Apart from the fact that it is "nice to know" there would be no
point in me quoting German papers if you don't read German, for
example.

 > > > (1) What is it that happens to nuts as they age (become out-of-season)
> > >     that makes them no longer acceptable?
> > >
> > Apparently (according to others in this list) nuts ARE acceptable
> > out of season if they are soaked for at least a day.
>
> I realize that, but my question was about the newly fallen nut vs.
> the older nut.  I personally have never read about levels of enzyme
> inhibitors changing as the nut ages, unsprouted (though I have yet to
> read the nut article Tom recommended, and I might find it there).  I
> rather doubt that there would be a difference, because a falling nut
> has no idea what's in store for it when it hits the ground.
>
You are correct in principle IMHO. OTOH, a stored nut is a dried nut
which has never been subjected to water and hence has never had its
enzyme inhibitors neutralised. I personally, for example, have
digestive problems with old, dried nuts but have no problems at all
with fresh. Try both out for yourself and report back.

> My understanding is that the enzyme inhibitors are there to keep the
> nut/seed in a state of suspended animation, not so much to prevent it
> from being digested by others, but to prevent self-digestion (a compo-
> nent of most rotting).

Since when does a live nut "rot" or "digest itself"??? Who wrote that?

> It would make sense, then, for the inhibitors
> to be inactivated by water, since water is the single most important
> clue to the nut/seed that it has found a good sprouting place.

That does make sense.

> > > (2) Don't the various things grouped under the common term "nuts"
> > >     actually come from different botanical groups?  Almonds, peanuts,
> > >     and cashews, for example, grow in such different ways.
> >
> > It makes no difference as nuts are essentially seeds..and are
> > not meant to be eaten really (unless they use the "host" as
> > a means of propagating..and are thus indigestible if not chewed).
>
> I, like Kirt, have some trouble with the idea that seeds are not
> meant to be eaten.  If they are not, does that mean that animals for
> whom seeds are a major food source are not meant to exist?

Which animal eats seeds rather than the "flesh" surrounding some of
them? Which animal gains nutrients from seeds alone and is this
animal supposedly one of our forefathers?

> The value
> of seeds as food for humans is a different question (and one which I
> cannot answer).
>
> > > (3) Could it be, since they are so different, that some nuts have
> > >     enzyme inhibitors as well, while some don't?
> >
> > They might look different but their purpose in Nature is identical.
> > Thus they stand to gain nothing by being chewed and digested.
>
> True, but they didn't evolve in a vacuum.  Similarly, the purpose of
> a deer's muscles could be said to be to get that deer away from its
> predators as fast as possible so that it can live to have more baby
> deer, but the deer's predators have been evolving right along side
> them, and the fact that wolves and others evolved the ability to make
> use of those deer muscles as food in no way denies the purpose that
> those muscles may hold for the deer.
>
I fail to see the connection here between deer and their predators and
enzyme inhibitors in seeds. Please explain Carol.

Best regards,

Alan