Pine Bark Flours page

[Mangrove]

Flours made out of the inner bark or the phloem of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris), called pettu in Finnish, is a speciality of Finland. Traditionally used as a substitute for other foods, pettu is now being researched for its other merits. According to a 1979 study by Finnish Defence Forces, 100 grams of dried pettu contain between 47 and 82 kcal of energy depending the time of the year it is harvested from a tree. For comparison, this is around 1/4 of the energy density of your typical cereal flours.

The study concludes that the best trees to collect bark are over 20 years of age. This is due to the fact that the tannin content of the trees lower as they age. Roasting the flours was found superior over to boiling for removing the tannins; two hours is sufficient time for the process. 1000 grams of fresh bark yields around 300 - 350 grams of flours.

Bark flour can be bought for a rather steep price from certain stores in Finland.

LINKS:
- The role of polyphenols in cardiovascular diseases - Research on the effects of Scots pine phloem on health
- Finnish documentary on all aspects of pettu

[Paleobird]

Yum. Tree bark.

[Mangrove]

Yum. Tree bark.

I bet most of us have eaten tree bark and loved it, i.e. cinnamon.

[Paleobird]

I bet most of us have eaten tree bark and loved it, i.e. cinnamon.

There is a difference between eating something as a spice and as a food.

[j3nn]

Native Americans used to eat a lot of tree bark. Adirondack translates to "tree eater"; it's how many natives survived winters. Perhaps many more lives would have been saved if more people knew the inner bark is edible.

[Paleobird]

Native Americans used to eat a lot of tree bark. Adirondack translates to "tree eater"; it's how many natives survived winters. Perhaps many more lives would have been saved if more people knew the inner bark is edible.

Oh, yeah, tree bark is edible and, if you are hungry enough it can keep you from starving. The same can be said of grains. From what was said in the OP, it sounds like both require a lot of processing just to be non-toxic. I think something naturally non toxic like a steak sounds better. I don't think any Native American would have turned down seconds on bison or venison for a side order of tree bark.

[j3nn]

Oh, yeah, tree bark is edible and, if you are hungry enough it can keep you from starving. The same can be said of grains. From what was said in the OP, it sounds like both require a lot of processing just to be non-toxic. I think something naturally non toxic like a steak sounds better. I don't think any Native American would have turned down seconds on bison or venison for a side order of tree bark.

The human palate loves variety, so it's no surprise that tree bark is on the menu. Has nothing to do with optimal or even preferential. Just another option that some might choose, or choose by default.

If this post were about edible wild mushrooms, some might question why you'd want to eat a fungi when you could have a steak instead. How about with?

[Mangrove]

From what was said in the OP, it sounds like both require a lot of processing just to be non-toxic.

The bark itself is not highly toxic but most people would probably prefer its taste without the bitter tannins and resins.

[athomeontherange]

so now we are hunting trees....hmmmm

[Dr. Bork Bork]

If you've ever eaten CW SAD food, you've had tree bark.
It's commonly known as... cellulose.