Are wild animals and plants necessarily more nutritious than bred animals and plants?

I don't think so, because the technology is already very advanced, so the artificially cultivated genetically modified animals and plants can be said to be very successful. As long as human beings want to develop animals and plants in any direction, they should be able to do it, as long as it is not particularly outrageous.

There is such a thought because whether it is a plant or an artificially bred animal, the taste is not very good, and the taste is really much worse than that of wild plants and animals. Cultivated plants will look very large, but they will have a tasteless feeling when eaten. Animals too, the feeling of eating the meat is very loose, it feels rotten before it is chewed, and there is no wild umami.

Moreover, the color of the artificially cultivated plants does not look very good, and the vegetables and plants grown in the ground by themselves look closer to the natural color. Artificially cultivated is lighter in color. The animals in captivity seem to have a lot of meat, but the meat is not exercised enough, and it looks very flabby, and I don't think it tastes good.

Therefore, some people think that artificially cultivated animals and plants are not as nutritious as wild animals.

But I don't think that's the case, human beings are very technologically advanced now. Any trace elements and minerals you want, or several trace elements and minerals, can be put on a plant or an animal. I feel in terms of nutrition. Artificially cultivated is even better.

Another reason for this thinking is that many people feel that this animal and plant is risky to eat, because no one knows what effect it will have on the human body if it is artificially modified to eat. As a result, more people reject and suppress artificially cultivated animal and plant food. However, in general, the nutrients of wild animals and plants are sufficient, and there is no need to eat these artificially cultivated animals and plants, after all, the taste is really poor.

I believe that we often encounter such a problem when buying supplements, whether to buy wild or artificially cultivated, for example, many high-end animal and plant medicinal materials, wild and farmed ** gap is very large, the seller will be pure wild medicinal value is high, relatively scarce such a reason to improve it.

So, what is the gap between wild animal and plant medicinal materials and artificially cultivated animal and plant medicinal materials? I believe that many people have question marks in their hearts. In fact, wild animal and plant medicinal materials are really not as valuable as artificially cultivated animal and plant medicinal materials, and the value is high-quality!

Many people think that the environment for wild animals to live in the wild is something that humans cannot give, and the animals and plants living in the wild are full of them, absorbing the sun, light, moon, and pure wild and pollution-free thoughts, which are deeply ingrained in their minds.

In fact, on the contrary, the survival of animals and plants in the wild, first of all, the sanitary conditions may not be up to standard, such as whether there is virus parasitism, or because of the influence of some environmental factors, resulting in their genetic mutation nutritional value is also greatly reduced, but artificially cultivated, and then better control the growth of animals and plants.

Give them the nutrients they need, and will also pass layers of screening, the best of the best, so that their nutritional value is higher, and their quality is also first-class, can be assured of practicality, and compared with wild animals and plants, it is cheaper, the same nutritional value is cheaper, I believe that everyone's eyes are bright.

And many of the so-called wildlife in the market is really just a front. The relevant regulations have been issued by the state. Protect and cherish precious wildlife.

So no matter what the purpose, we have to choose artificially cultivated animals and plants, after all, there is no buying and selling, there is no killing!

Are wild animals more nutritious.

Wild animals are best not to eat, because first of all, nutritionally speaking, they do not have any special nutrients, and then the nutrients contained in wild animals, domestic animals are basically there, and wild animals basically live a hungry and full living environment, it is difficult for them to accumulate higher nutrients, plus they also get to forage and run everywhere and other sports that will consume a lot of energy and nutrients, so in this kind of eating less and high consumption conditions, wild animals do not have particularly high nutritional valueWild animals also carry a large number of parasites, as well as bacteria and viruses that humans don't know much about, such as "SARS" and "AIDS", which everyone has heard of. Even if (hypothetically) wild animals have high nutritional value and are free of harmful effects such as parasites, viruses, bacteria, heavy metals, etc., wild animals cannot be eaten, because every wild animal and plant is an important part of maintaining the ecological environment on the earth, except for human beings, of course, everyone knows ......

Every time a species goes extinct, it creates an ecological "butterfly benefit" and a "chain effect" along the food chain.

The intuitive phenomena caused by ecological collapse include global "desertification", that is, deserts have become larger, and some places that originally had no or few sandstorms are now always having sandstorms.

Wild animals and plants have irreplaceable and important value for the long-term survival and development of our human beings, which is also an important reason for countries to legislate to protect wild animals and plants.

Therefore, eating wild animals is environmentally damaging and illegal, and it is a selfish act of low quality and low morality.

1.It is possible that the soil composition is different. Inorganic salts are needed for plant growth, and the inorganic salts of artificially cultivated soil will be reduced after continuous absorption. The wild soil is fertile, with a high content of various inorganic salts and a high nutritional value.

3.The growing environment is different. Artificial planting with chemical fertilizers and pesticides, artificial irrigation, delicate body. The wild depends on the sunshine and rain of nature, and must have extraordinary ability to reproduce, and its body should have a variety of substances to adapt to the complex and changeable environment, and its nutrition is rich.

This statement is contrary to common sense, what is (value) why human beings select wild plants to breed cultivated plants, is to increase the value of plants, (high yield, excellent quality) to make it meet the needs of human beings.

If you want to eat wild rice instead of fragrant rice, eat wild pears that are all sour and astringent with stone cells instead of Tianjin Sydney pears, eat wild strawberries that grow in the field are small and sour, and eat small, sour and bitter wild grapes on the mountains, I think the answer must be no.

Human beings continue to breed various crops, and only continue to breed varieties that are suitable for the needs of various groups of people.

The cultivated plants you said are often less valuable than wild plants, and wild vegetables in the vegetable field are more expensive than cultivated vegetables, which is just how much cabbage do individuals in the large group of human beings want to eat some wild vegetables. This is just a high commodity value, like shepherd's cabbage, Maran in the spring everyone loves to eat, there are people to improve the variety for cultivation, containing oxalic acid, tannin less taste is good.

Due to the complex geographical environment, the content of active ingredients in wild plants is generally higher than that of artificial planting, and it is more likely to grow for a long time rather than artificial fertilization. And things are rare and expensive, and they are generally fried higher.

Personally, I think that since the food should be artificially cultivated, there is a natural reason, such as increasing production, increasing variety, increasing nutrition and other reasons, as said upstairs, each has its own good, there is no certain, some artificially cultivated food is wild and does not have, so naturally there is no comparison. Nowadays, many people seek the original ecology and seek the wild, not that the wild one is necessarily better than the artificial breeding, but that the wild one is more natural, and there are no chemicals such as hormones, pigments, fertilizers, etc., and of course, the artificial ones do not necessarily have chemicals.

For example, the vegetables we often eat, such as peppers, pumpkins, etc., are wild but no one eats them, because they are not only not nutritious, but also lack deliciousness, and those cultivated and planted are not only highly nutritious, but also easy to plant and have high yields, otherwise how to meet the needs of life? Another example is that many animals, such as pigs, we are commonly bred in captivity, and many people like to eat wild boar, of course, this is a personal hobby, and there are different opinions on its taste, texture, etc., but it is not possible to determine which is better.

So the question you asked is really unanswerable, no one is good or bad, it depends on personal preference. But I believe that the two are mutually reinforcing, and a lot of the artificial ones are inspired by wild species and developed them.

Whether the food is better in the wild or farmed and planted, in fact, there is no certainty, each has its own good, of course, one or two sentences can not be comprehensive. To put it simply, it is believed that wild food is good because it comes from nature, especially when people have doubts about the use of chemicals in breeding and planting, and wild food is limited, which also responds to the saying that scarcity is expensive. Breeding and planting food is the most important food for human beings today, and it is also the condition for human survival and development, not to mention that breeding and planting provides abundant, excellent and sufficient food for human beings, on the contrary, wild animals and plants may carry parasites, pathogens, toxic substances, etc., which will also bring serious harm to human beings before people have no preventive measures.

Now people should think about how to make the food grown safer, how to control and use chemicals rationally, and how to rationally improve animals and plants.

Personally, I don't think so, the wild has strong adaptability and is very easy to live, but the domesticated ones are better-looking, and some characteristics are better understood, which is the result of many years of selective breeding.