Food Question:
I’ve heard that broccoli is one of the best foods for providing some essential nutrients. I’ve always assumed that the nutrients are in the florets, but I wonder if there are any in the stem part of the plant. If you throw out the stem, are you also throwing out some of the nutrients?
j
I think you are correct; the florets have all the anti-oxidants, but I think the stalks are just fiber (which is good for you too).
‘Nutrition’ is a bit of a vague term because it can mean simple food energy value, or amount of beneficial (non-energy-providing) elements and compounds, or general benefit to the diet etc.
Here is an excellent nutritional analysis of (raw)broccoli, although it doesn’t break it down into the different parts.
Typically, the florets and the attached leaves (if any) are going to contain most of the vitamins and other good stuff like folic acid etc, but the stem is not devoid of nutrition.
You might be interested in knowing that here in Italy they cut off and throw away the heads so they can eat the stems. We cooked a meal for an Italian family of ours and they were a little surprised 
No idea as to your question, though.
I was about to create a new thread about this topic, but found this one while doing a last minute search. Since my question is essentially the same as the OP, and it still has not been answered, I am bringing the zombie to life.
So what is the deal? I can get frozen chopped stems and crowns for half the price of crowns alone. The nutritional facts on the packages are identical. Given the price differential, I would really like the stems to be as nutritious*. What is the dope?
*nutritious, meaning containing the same variety and quantity of vitamins and minerals
As a rule of thumb for vegetables, the vitamins are where the color is. The entire broccoli plant is pretty close to the same color, so I’d guess that the whole thing is nutritious, too.
Then again, the two most prominent exceptions to that rule, cauliflower and cabbage (both pale but still nutritious) are very close relatives of broccoli, so I’m not certain.
Not only are they related, they’re the exact same species! “[Brassica oleracea] has been bred into a wide range of cultivars, including cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower…” Oh, and let me add Brussels sprouts to that list while I’m at it.
That said, I don’t know if or how the different cultivars (or different parts of the same cultivar) may vary from each other in terms of nutrition.
Broccoli stalks - raw.Per 100gm:
Broccoli flower clusters - raw.
(You can set the serving sizes each to the same unit.)
Same mere 28 calories. Pretty much its just that the flowers have a lot more A, but both are pretty dang nutritious otherwise. Low calorie and huge Vitamin C. Heck, even a modest amount of omega 3 in each of 'em.
Great site to play with. But it is not perfect … look at the listing for just broccoli raw (1 serving set at 148gm) and suddenly it is a great source of K too despite K not listed for either the flowers or the stalks. But minor issues, still a great site.
So, if the info from that one site is valid, it looks like the stalks are almost as good as the florets. Can anyone vouch for the accuracy of nutritiondata.self.com?
The next question would be regarding frozen versus raw. The data from nutriondata seems a little suspect when it comes to that comparison.
As a general principle frozen produce is just as nutritious as raw/fresh.
Local grown fresh may have an advantage. And of course texture is different.
Do you think maybe you might be overthinking this? Frozen, fresh, whole thing, just flower heads … any which way it is a food stuffed with vitamins, minerals, antioxidants, very filling for few calories, even not too shabby at omega 3 and complete protein (for a vegetable). If you like it, eat it!