> Hi Carol and David,

Hi Alan,

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

> 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 )

> > (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.

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).  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.

> > (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?  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.

:)
Carol