Interesting response from someone who advicates more hybridization
of our food crops.
Perhaps you can show me a cite for a means to raise cattle that
produces anywhere the same calories/acre that grain does. Without
that, your proposal still reduces the effective food supply.
Cows can be frost tollerant, at least. Do you have any other
suggestions that can work in North Dakota or Alberta? High fat
crops have a tendency to be tropical. One exception is nuts, which
won't work for the increasing segment with nut allergies. The other
exceptions are grains (source of most vegetable oils), which you
I thought he was in Oz, though I have trouble keeping track of
things like that.
*You* are proposing that non-grain produce can replace grains, with
equal food value, using the same crop land, as a global practice.
I don't see it as unfair to ask you to specify which crops have
Drew Lawson I had planned to be dead by now, but
the schedule slipped, they do that.
You are not following. All produce we eat has been
hybridized for one thing or another.
When I say "test tube", I mean synthetic. Not found
I also include in that "gene splicing" (a.k.a GMO).
When you hybridize a plant, you are doing it the
old fashioned way. Not splicing genes from a weasel
onto a dove.
You missed the point. On soil that won't grow anything
else other than cellulose (grass), grow cows (livestock)
on it. Use the good soil to grow other stuff.
Every summer out here in Nevada, since the Fed took over
managing it from the ranchers, we have range land fires.
Some of the localities bring in sheep to mow the
cheat grass off the hill sides to help prevent these
fires. AND YOU GET TO EAT THEM AFTERWARDS! It is
a good use of land that would not otherwise grow
anything edible. (Lamb -- YUK! Okay, other gets to
Using wiki as the source...
Total world land mass is estimated to be 57,505,693.767 sq mi
and the total world population is estimated at 7.169 billion
So using some math, correctly I hope:
57505693.767 / 7169000000 = 0.00802143866187752825 sq miles
0.0080214 sq miles = 5.256939 acres per person.
And that is counting all land mass, some which would be hard to inhabit
if at all. It just won't work, too many people...
When you switch that land from growing grain to grazing cattle, you
reduce the yield in terms of calories/acre. The world still has
billions of people to feed, and you have just reduced the food
supply. Where do you make up that deficit?
I much prefer steak to bread, but I'm not as comfortable as you
appear to be with suggesting that we willfully require others to
Remember, this whole subthread started with you saying that we
should stop farming grain, and David asking how you suggest feeding
the 7 billion humans without grain. You have yet to address that
I'm happy for you that you like your new diet and lifestyle.
However, that does not address the question.
Drew Lawson | Savage bed foot-warmer
| of purest feline ancestry
You are still missing what I said. Were the land won't
support other things, grow grass for livestock. I thought
I was pretty clear on that point. Don't use the good
farm land for livestock!
Where are you getting that I want people to starve? I don't
want anyone to starve! This is one of those arguments where
the news reporter asks, "So, when was the last time you beat
By the way, I think sustainable crops produce higher yields
on the same real estate. Meaning more food. (Tastes better
too.) And, if argibusiness is not careful, all that land
they are currently using right now will go dead and not
be able to produce anything.
By the way, sustainable farmers take that burned out land
(soil) and nurture it back to health. It takes years.
Songbird can probably fill you in on the details. In the
mean time, the land is not producing.
So, you are in favor of burning out all our soil? Why is
it again that you want people to starve? (Just pointing
out the fallacy of your argument. I know you don't.)
My suggestion is that we cut back on the things that
cause T2 Diabetes and substitute them with safer things.
The things I eat work fine. Do you need a list?
You will find them at any grocery store's produce
section. Some you have to go to specialty stores,
like Mexican Supermarkets.
I think we need to deliberately try to hybridize towards fat
and away from carbs. In the mean time, you can grow all
kinds of other things on land that wheat grows on. Let a
free and open market dictate what.
In the Philippines, where they are not fat, exercise A LOT,
eat rice, and consequently have a T2 Diabetes problem,
they are trying to transition to a special type of corn.
By the way, I asked, and that variety of corn is not available
in the United States.
And, I am not trying to rip that piece of pizza out of your
mouth. I am trying to keep your feet from falling off.
T2 Diabetes will come under control when we get the carbs
back to a natural level.
Sure, a list would be great.
List the foods that will take the place of grain in the global food
system. Remember that grain is essentially non-perishable. It can
be shipped on slow-moving ships, and handle long, unrefrigerated,
transit to where the people are.
If you can't do that, then people will starve.
What are these "all kinds" of food? They need to grow in the same
climates as grain, and handle the same soil types and water
requirements. They also need to produce on average the same
calories/acre as grain. Otherwise, you cannot meet the current
food demand, and people will starve.
The market does not decide what will grow where.
That article says nothing about "a special type of corn," unless
you consider white corn to be special. The article is about switching
from rice to corn.
Asked who? Which variety?
Drew Lawson I had planned to be dead by now, but
the schedule slipped, they do that.
Off the top of my head: tomatoes (love the heirlooms),
avocados, cauliflower, Brussels sprouts, asparagus,
broccoli, pruslane, summer squash (zukes), eggplant,
jicama, nopalas, peppers (all kinds), blueberries,
raspberries, boysenberries (if I can find them),
lemons, onions, garlic, shallots. Probably more.
I am trying to grow tomantillos. (I probably misspelled
half of the above.)
Googling that is like googling the word "it". Tons
of hits on how to grow wheat, including in your own
back yard. Not to waste too much time on it, I found
various links. They are not real good, so I wouldn't
spend too much time on them, if at all:
I am sure there are a lot of others hidden under how to grow wheat,
whose hits are in the hundreds.
We grow onions for seed out here and are starting to
grow garlic. Not sure if it is for seed. You could easily
use that land for something else. Wonderful smell when
you drive by those fields. They could grow wheat too,
but then they'd probably go broke.
Let the market decide what is grown. Wheat allergies
are becoming more of a pain in the ass for a lot of people,
not just celiacs. And they are finding it is not only
the glutin, but wheat in general.
Have you ever heard of crop rotation? If only wheat could grow
on that land, how would you rotate? I mainly base my opinion
on just looking over the fruited plains. All kinds of stuff
mixed in with the wheat. Also, sustainable farmers take
these burned out wheat fields and grow lots of other stuff
You grow what you can sell. So, I have to disagree
to an extent. There are obvious limitations of
what you can grow where. But very few soils can
only grow one thing. There is no such thing as
soil that can only grow wheat.
I researched it months ago. I came up with the type of corn
they wanted to switch to and called a few seed companies.
I think Burpee was one, but I don't recall. Talked to some
very nice people. Sorry for the lack of information. If
you are interesting in growing the stuff, I am sure you
could probably figure it out too.
Burpee's sweet corns taste like candy they are so sweet.
I mean the ones I grew years ago were so, so sweet!
I think most of Burpee's emphasis is on those varieties
(Diabetes be damned).
:-)) Indeed. He never gets it or seemingly even tries.
His standard response is that it's our fault not his, just as his T2
diabetes is because of a conspiracy that made him and others eat carbs
and he had no responsibility at all for what he put in his mouth over a
lifetime of eating. I beginning to think that a plonk would be the best
I was following what the special interests said. Whole
grains, healthy carbs, low fat. Did a bunch of walking.
Carbs good; fat bad. I thought I was doing what I was
suppose to do.
I now know, except for the walking part, that it was total
B*** S***. My "fault" was whom I chose to believe.
And apparently you will have to get injured yourself before
you stop with the fat bigotry. Fat and lazy. That would explain
all the skinny, active folks who also get injured. Also
explains the third world, where they eat far less and move far
more. Yup. Fat and Lazy. Nothing to do with carbs. Absolutely
NOTHING! Fat and Lazy.
Excess carbs in are like the "elephant in the living room"
no one wants acknowledge.
And I said "corruption" not "conspiracy".
"Healthy carbs" my ass.
Thank you for at least admitting that you do not know anything.
If you need google, then you are just talking out your ass.
You have an interesting tendency to post links to one or two sites,
and nothing else. Sounds like a "cult of personality" more with
You have been asked what else to grow.
You avoid answering.
And yet, you cannot come up with a name to report.
You, sir (if I have the gender correct) are a liar.
Again, it is entertaining that an anti-GMO "person" would be dealing
I am, or was, interested in whether your claims were pulled out of
You have confirmed that they were.
David was correct. You aren't worth the bits to send replies.
I had hoped you had details, rather than being a windbag with
assertions (and conspiracies) but no substance.
Much like the political party that I disagree with -- I keep hoping
for a gadfly with substantial claims, to keep my side in-line. But
all I ever get is hand-waving and vacuous claims -- just like you.
Part of the problem with zealots is there are no nuances, no details, no
shading, no compromises. You are either with them entirely or agin 'em.
I don't think that a food system based on broad acre farming with big inputs
from fertiliser derived from fossil fuel is ideal in the long run either.
However, the idea of quitting grains altogether for ideological reasons is
The biggest danger to this world is not diet, climate-change, starvation,
asteroid-strike, Murdock or Godlessness. Its Toddthink.
Nope, not with increasingly limited resources. The way I see most
people driving I wonder if they've ever heard of 'peak oil' and what the
downstream consequences are stemmign form that.
And you too would be conscious of all those years of applications of
However, the idea of quitting grains altogether for ideological
:-)) Conspiracy and paranoia can be great fun if it's done in jest but
when it's expounded in a serious way then, IMO, there should at least be
some sane or reasoned basis for it.
I'll let those older than me do the stronger comparisons of current
lifestyles with those in the '40s. But even comparing with the
'60s, when there were already grumblings about sedentary lifestyles,
is pretty signifigant.
My memories of the late '60s, in US small cities and suburbs, have
far more people walking. Households often only had a single car,
and days were run accordngly. There was very little shuttling kids
here and there. Kids walked or rode their bikes.
And other details that seem minor probably had a lot of effect. I
don't recall elevators much, except in the taller or fancier
buildings. Anything 2 story just had stairs.
The first shopping mall I dealt with was in 1973. Freshly opened,
there was one escalator, and several sets of stairs. The only
stairs in my local mall now are more for show than anything else.
(They frame a central atrium.)
In my view, a lot of the trend toward obesity came in very small
steps like those. That along with more convenience. I can park
close to things now, so I walk less. Etc.
And, of course, cheaper bulk food helped drive our personal bulk.
The reason I referenced WW2 is that it seems to be a standard turning
point, at least for US agriculture. All of the industrial build
up and advancement of the war got turned to post-war use. We took
improvements for tanks and made bigger tractors. The oil demand
of the war drove expanding the supply, and an eventual outcome was
expansion of the petrochemical industry.
I probably have some of that wrong, but that's my general impression.
"Please understand that we are considerably less interested
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.