Or I eat what I want and to hell with the consequences.
And by the way, I chose what I ate. I believed the
"healthy carbs" bull shit. I should have known
better, but I liked what I was eating. Carbs
And, guess what. I still eat too much and I am
getting better. Wonder why that is? Do you
suppose it is "what" I eat? No, couldn't be.
Not a chance. I had to have hurt myself because
I sit on my fat ass and eat too much! (2+2=3)
Eating too much and drug and allopath free
since September 2013.
No sign of any body parts falling off. Hmmm.
Wonder why? Has nothing whatsoever to do with
what I eat. Nope. Not a chance.
The conspiracy/victim thing is what gets to me. There is no denying
that there is a lot of misinformation and misunderstanding about
diet. There always has been, and probably always will be. But
taking things to the point where potato farmers are out to poison
us all is just silly.
Thinking about diabetes and convenience foods tends to take my mind
to all the 20th century futurists (and fiction authors) who predicted
by now we'd drop food and live on sugar pills packed with vitamins.
There will be no sensible response. As a beef producer (grass fed only)
and someone who comes from a long line of potato growers and from an
immediate family that owned a free range poultry business, I know that
access to the type of food that Todd keeps wittering on about is both
expensive and scarce even in first world societies.
We first worlders are OK, stuff the rest of the world....................
It truly is more expensive. As techniques develop, and
demand increases, and alternative marketing vehicles expand,
price will come down. It is also cheaper to buy it directly
from the farmer or a CO-OP. The "pick your own" farms
want $2.00/lb for tomatoes, where as the supermarket
wants $4.00/lb for organic.
Also, it is not scarce in the United States. If it
is scare where you hail from, then you should be able
to get a reasonable price for your product. Supply and
demand. So, I do not understand your argument.
As for the "First Worlders", there are some that incorrectly
believe that they are the ones with the Diabetes as they are
the ones that over eat. The PI is getting pasted with the
the riddle wrapped in an enigma wrapped
You said the stuff was scarce. I told you that is the
USA is was not. Just more expensive. I buy it
all the time. Nothing obtuse.
And I repeat, grass fed beef, if it is scarce in your
parts, why are you not getting a better price for it?
Is your government imposing some kind of artificial
Be careful of such political correctness. WHO would
never call out the folks that brought us T2. Everybody
waxes everybody palms. Its in the air. Its because
you are lazy and fat. Just be careful of what the
special interests. I was and am still pissed at
how much money is being make off us T2's.
I will repeat what I wrote you about the Hanza:
There is a nice article on the Hadza over at:
Many in public health believe that a major culprit is
our sedentary lifestyle. Faced with relatively few
physical demands today, our bodies burn fewer calories
than they evolved to consume — and those unspent calories
pile up over time as fat. The World Health Organization,
in discussing the root causes of obesity, has cited a
“decrease in physical activity due to the increasingly
sedentary nature of many forms of work, changing modes
of transportation and increasing urbanization.”
This is a nice theory. But is it true? To find out,
my colleagues and I recently measured daily energy
expenditure among the Hadza people of Tanzania, one
of the few remaining populations of traditional
hunter-gatherers. Would the Hadza, whose basic way
of life is so similar to that of our distant
ancestors, expend more energy than we do?
Our findings, published last month in the journal
PLoS ONE, *indicate that they don’t*, suggesting
that inactivity is not the source of modern obesity.
the same way it was done before much of the
current nonsense came along. diversity, smaller
farms and people working together as an actual
i've seen good results here on not much room
at all, no reason it can't work on a larger
scale other than needing more people who would
want to do it. enough people get hungry enough
and perhaps they will want to do it too.
Saw a documentary on Netflix about a guy that
did full circle farming. He got $3000 per acre
(if he is to be believed). Where as his
neighbors only got about $450 per acre. It is a great
model. And the food tastes so much better.
I do believe the guy said what he was really
doing was raising grass.
Grass-->cows-->sheep-->turkeys (eat the bugs in the poop) -->chickens (bugs)-->plow poop under-->raise vegetables, -->back to grass. If I remember correctly, he had
six fields under constant rotation. Move out the cows,
move in the sheep, etc..
I hate lamb from the supermarket. I wonder if I would
like his. He said he couldn't keep up with demand.
Which is what happens when food tastes good.
the riddle wrapped in an enigma wrapped
There just won't be enough food. What is so hard to understand about 2/3 of
the worlds food calories come from carbohdrates, mainly grain grown on
farms? If you stop doing that what do they eat? Do it like it was done
before? What was that, when? When the entire world population was a few
million? How does that scale up to 7 billion? Where does the land come
Stop with the idealism for a second, take a breath and look at the figures.
You and Todd are both in fantasy land.
I just don't see it. That same farm land can grow other crops.
The techniques Songbird and I talk about can incorporated
in various degrees.
Think of this, the California wine industry has almost
completely switched to organic techniques. The reason being
that the entire vineyard is consistent, one end to the other.
They no longer have one end that is more sour than the
other, etc.. And, they get a higher yield. Cheaper
So basically, if we are to feed more people, this is an
idea that is coming. It is a matter of practicality, not
Just out of curiosity, do you use compose in your garden
or ammonium nitrate? Which gets the better, more consistent
the riddle wrapped in an enigma wrapped
No it can't. Country where wheat and sheep are produced cannot grow
vegetables. Our land, where we currently produce beef cattle, could not
grow vegetables. We also cannot grow grapes successfully either.
It's all abbut the class of land (which relates to the quality of the
land) and rainfall/water. The former is not high quality enough for the
production of vegetables and the latter is just plain old deficient.
You are correct. And, I also think you misunderstand me.
What I meant was that where wheat is grown, other
crops can be substituted. Depends on consumer demand.
Wheat farmer don't make squat off of wheat. Who grows
wheat in the desert anyway? That is for livestock.
By the way, you can grow hemp on the same land as
wheat with half the water and apparently, if you listen
to their advocates, make twice the money per acre.
Where sheep and cattle are typically raised (my Nevada
for example), the ground is only capable of producing
cellulose (grass). The livestock then converts it
into food for us.
But not always, you aught to try some of Fallon's
cantaloupes. Grown right in the middle of the desert.
(No doubt livestock scat has a great deal to do with
In California's central valley (over the hill from
us, the land of fruits and nuts -- I wonder if Higgs
will catch that), they have all kinds of vegetables,
wheat, etc., all mixed together.
On full circle farms, the do grow cows, sheep,
turkeys, chickens, vegetables, and grass. But,
that is on land with more water than our desert.
By the way, Fallon is about and hour and half
drive away. None of us here can grow a cantaloupe
for our lives! Life is cruel that way.
Thank you by the way. Ranching in very difficult
work and you don't get paid squat for it. Grass
fed too! I have a lot of admiration for what you do.
Speaking of Fallon, Mori-Lahatton runs a ranch
and his own butcher house. Grass fed only. He
says he only gets 2 lbs a day versus 3 lbs a
day with the chemicals. His cows are allowed to
walk around and are not penned up where they can
only lift theirs head up and down to eat.
He hangs his beef the old fashioned way. Tastes
so good, you would not think it was the same
animal as in the grocery store! And he and
his whole family work the butt off.
Wheat country is dry country. Grain grows well in that country which is
why it is grown there. Other crops can be grown there but they need
irrigation and that is not an option in so many grain growing areas.
Depends on consumer demand.
The only person to mention growing wheat in the desert is you. Wheat
grows in dry country but I've never heard of anyone growing wheat in a
Not according to the NSW Department of Primary Industry:
Hemp needs irrigation but wheat does not in NSW. Also the wheat growing
areas would be too hot for hemp to be grown successfully.
yes, they actually improved their health after the
initial decline in calories, (basically they lost a
meal a day for a few years until the veggie patches
came into production).
the thing is, that if you get everyone to put in
a few hours here or there it isn't that bad. right
now we are two people who sort of garden a few
thousand square feet, it's not intensively done or
even with a lot of fiddling, and while we may not
have perfect results it still provides a great deal
like right now, i'm harvesting strawberries so that's
more than we'll ever be able to eat fresh. making
freezer jam today and after one more large round of
picking/processing i'll probably call people and let
them know they can come pick when they want, first
come first served. critters are eating plenty of
Accepting wikipedia's numbers for the sake of debate, New York City
(proper) has an area of 304.8 square miles and a population of
8,405,837. According to my calculator, that works out to about
1010 square feet per person. Take out the space used by roads,
walkways, parks and non-flattop buildings. How well do you think
they will eat if they put in a few hours each, but you take away
the farm influx?
And at ~27k/sqmi, NYC doesn't even come close to getting on wikipedia's
list of top sities by population density. Looks like Manila works
out to about 250 sqft/person.
What you say can be done, but it cannot be done for the current
Drew Lawson | What you own is your own kingdom
| What you do is your own glory
why is it valid to say there will be no
farm inflow from the surrounding area?
if it doesn't happen that we can transport
food into large cities then for sure people
will be moving out. there are vast areas of
the surrounds that could be used again for
mixed agriculture. they are fallow in large
part now because most people are happy with
processed packaged chemfoods (derived from
corn, soy, wheat and rice).
assuming people stay in place. as you probably
know, when shit hits the fan, people start to
migrate. when the sea levels increase we'll
already have huge movements of people and will be
forced to rebuild large chunks of infrastructure,
wouldn't it be great if we actually built them
with sustainability, efficiency and better land
use policies for people who will walk, garden
and have green spaces?
The surrounding area is full of farms!
Some NYC folks even grow their own stuff on their roofs!
Great hobby and yummy.
Watched a documentary where they are trying to
fish farm in their basements to cut the transportation
time (bad fish stick!) on fish to market. Don't
know how well that will turn out.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.