At last some engagement!
Those other crops (which other crops are they?) cannot produce anything like
the calories per unit area that grains do. It's all about the efficiency to
harvest sunshine. We are running out of arable land and losing much
constantly while every day there are a few million more mouths to feed.
Aside from the obvious that we cannot keep reproducing ourselves to
extinction this implies the need for more food per acre of land not less.
Have you read about the green revolution? Start with Wikipedia. For the
current situation go to the FAO they have been grappling with this for
decades. Those are the kinds of figures that make your scheme impossible to
apply generally. As Fran said, what you suggest is only possible in rich
Assuming that what you say about yield and cost are true about California
wine you cannot extrapolate this to your scheme to do away with
carbohydrates as a major component of the world's diet. For a start their
measure of success is to produce quality wine not feed the maximum people
No it isn't. You merely assert your case but I need you to produce some
I am mainly organic but I would describe my approach as eclectic with a bias
towards recylcling and away from introduced inputs. I have no need of
ammonium nitrate as I can get N from manures. But I will use Potassium
sulphate as there is no other practical way to get K into my soil.
This is not relevant as I am not trying to feed a family on my vege plot.
Let us not get too distracted by the specifics of my garden, you need to
show how the world can still eat by doing away with 2/3 of its calories that
come from carbohydrates. And show the FAO how to find a way to feed those
millions of poor buggers who already don't get three squares most days. And
the millions extra that will be born daily until we get means of population
control other than starvation and war.
Replace those calories with fat. It is the idea fuel
for humans. And more calories per weight than carbs.
Plus, no Diabetes. Hybridize the high carb foods
for fat. Not addictive either, so there will be special
interests and corrupt government agencies kicking
and scratching not to do it.
Don't mistake initial iterations as the final end product.
As we say in engineering: iterate, iterate, iterate. You
would be amazed at what humans can do when they put their
minds to it. We will find a way. Unleash the human spirit
and you'd be surprised at ways we find to farm and do other
things. Songbird's stuff may seem silly at first glance,
but that is not the way to look at it. The way to
look at it is that it is an initial iteration. Say
to yourself "I wonder if this can be improved on by ...".
Look at Songbird as a pioneer (who takes the arrows).
For example, we Nevadans benefit from world class
cantaloupes grown in the "desert". (I get to eat a half
of one at a sitting.) Definitely not "arable land", if
your were to believe the naysayers.
As far as those starving in the world, you will find
it is far more a product of stifling the human spirit
(Socialism) than any other reason. Were free markets are
allowed, supply and demand shift resources around automatically.
By the way, "Starvation" is one of the methods "the most"
brutal empire in the history of the world used to
subjugate the populace (the Soviet Union). Mainly so they
could not fight back. So, your war argument doesn't hold.
Starving people don't go to war -- they can't.
So, how will the problem be solved? Easy. The human
spirit: the free and open exchange of goods and services
between consenting parties.
You have to do some work in hybridizing. Or grow something else
that isn't addictive.
Heard a Hemp advocate on the radio. Apparently much more
effective that wheat per acre and half the water. But,
I could not verify anything he said.
He also said that pollen from hemp would ruin Marijuana
As for calories. Eat an avocado! I especially love the heirloom
varieties. Haas are bland and twice as expensive.
Here is a good run down for you on fat vs carbs:
On the other hand, gram for gram, fats provide more energy than
The reason for this is the amount of oxidation that
takes place as these compounds are converted
to carbon dioxide and water. Carbon for carbon,
fats require more oxidation to become CO2 and H2O
than do carbohydrates. Roughly speaking, carbohydrates
already have one oxygen for every carbon atom, thus,
each carbon atom needs only one more oxygen and
each pair of hydrogen atoms needs one more oxygen.
However, almost every carbon atom in a fat molecule
needs two oxygens instead of just one additional one,
and each pair of hydrogen atoms still needs one more
oxygen. So, just from counting the number of oxygens
needed to be added, fats require about half again as
much oxygen for the same number of carbon atoms.
Because of this, the oxidation of fats takes longer,
but it also gives off more energy.
When comparing gram to gram, instead of carbon to
carbon, the effect is exaggerated. When you weigh a
carbohydrate, more oxygen is included in that weight.
When you weigh a fat, you get more carbon atoms per
gram and therefore, gram for gram, the fats will give
even more energy (over twice as much) than will the
carbohydrates. Generally, fats provide about 9
kilocalories per gram and carbohydrates provide
about 4 kilocalories per gram. (Using nutritional
units, that is 9 Calories/gram for fats and 4
Calories/gram for carbohydrates.)
Did you catch the part about "9 Calories/gram for fats
and 4 Calories/gram for carbohydrates"? That would over
double the calories you are looking for!
As far as your question as to what to replace grain with,
just look in your produce isle. If you have a Mexican
grocery store, there are even more options. (I have
a really great one filled with the nicest people.
Love them dearly. Lots of neat stuff!)
the riddle wrapped in an enigma wrapped
Can you be more specific. Which fats do you say should be grown?
And how do you propose that anyone grows avacodoes in cereal producing
I especially love the heirloom
And where is the fat coming form? Specifically.
Jesus wept! Why on earth would you think David might have a Mexican
grocery store near him? What do you say can replace grain? Be specific
and if you don't know then say so because platitudes don't cut it.
Grow cows. I love to eat cows too. What a silly argument.
Anywhere natural. Cows, avocados, coconuts, etc.. This isn't
Hmmmmmm.. Maybe because he is from the Peoples Republic
of California. (I may have him mixed up with Higgs.)
You don't know much about California or the United States.
Mexico is our neighbor. Nevada and California have little
Mexican Grocery stores all over the place. The rest of the
country in varying degrees too.
Do you ever go to a grocery store? Just look in the
produce section. Would you like a specific list of what
By the way, I eat ZERO grains. They will first maim me then
kill me. And I am just fine.
Feed the grains and the rest of the plant to cows. I will eat
You can't grow Paleo beef in cereal country. Paleo beef is grass fed
Grass does not grow in sufficient quantities in cereal growing country
to feed beef. Beef that is raised in cereal growing country is all feed
lot, grain fed beef. Paleos don't eat grain fed beef because it's not
true to the Paleo way of eating.
And yes, it IS indeed a silly argument because you don't know what is
involved or the practicalities of what you are advocating.
You do have mixed him up with Higgs or with David Ross.
I've seen at least a thousand US TV shows dating from as far back as the
1950s where cowboys or Indians or Mexican banditos or Texan Ranchers or
outlaws or Mexican illegals or posses crossed the Rio Grande!
And of course I do know a bit about American literature. Perhaps you've
heard of Cormac MaCarthy's Border trilogy? I believe that at least one
movie arose from those wonderful books.
I assume you do know that these books were set in Mexico and Texas? The
Mexico that sits to the South of Texas, USA?
Nevada and California have little
Gosh! I couldn't guess that from your comment that David might have a
Mexican grocery nearby or from the million US TV shows I've
Don't you know that Paleos are not supposed to eat grain fed beef?
Grain fed beef is a late 20th century invention. Paleolithic man never,
ever, fed beef with grain.
Actually, I don't know that. I follow Mark Sisson
Mr. Paleo himself and a fellow diabetic):
And Steve Cooksey (another fellow diabetic):
Neither one these guys go into that. You are
just suppose to approximate and not obsess on it.
See Mark's comments below.
And, just feed the cows the whole plant. Feeding them straight
grain gives them ulcers. And no one is suppose to eat
sick animals. That is what vultures and ants (carrion
eaters) are for.
You are making this way harder than it has to be.
Anywhere you can raise wheat, you can also raise
grass. I presume that is how you do it on your ranch.
Here is a great reference from Mark Sisson (Mr. Paleo
himself) on grass fed versus grain fed beef:
My favorite part is:
I, ahem, want to eat delicious animals and buying
delicious animals promotes their production
For me, the clearly superior version of beef comes
from the grass-fed and –finished cows raised by
ranchers committed to providing excellent stewardship
of both soil and cattle. Next, cows that have been
grass-fed, pastured, and grain-finished by similarly
committed producers with similarly maintained soil quality.
After that? Just eat beef. Whatever you can get on a
regular basis. Grab the occasional grass-fed cut when
you can, see how it tastes, and figure out if it’s
worth it to you.
I would be curious, if you actually read the article
(you don't have to), if, from your experience as a
producer of grass fed beef, if you disagree with any
of his comments.
What fat, where from, how much, what density of calories per acre can it
yield? Did you even look at the FAO site?
You haven't even got to the feasibility study level how can you be talking
Irrelevant, nothing like the density of food required and needs extensive
irrigation which is getting more scarce by the day.
Idealogical clap-trap doesn't feed people. If you have been driven off your
land and your sons forced into the army you don't give a shit about whether
the warlord is a socialist, a martian. You don't care if they are
philosophers or just of another tribe that thinks your tribe is scum to be
cleared so they can take over.
I didn't say starving people go to war. You have this grossly over
simplified (like the rest). Famine and war go together, each is a common
cause of the other.
The last translates as "I haven't a clue how to do it in practice but I have
much pious hope"
I think we leave it there (as predicted) there is no progress.
You are just frustrated because I am not agreeing with
I think the human spirit will surprise you. Remember when
the patent office was closed as there was nothing new to
discover? Humanity is not a static equation. We are dynamic.
Don't be so negative. There is a lot of exciting things
going on in the farming community right now -- a mixture
of good old fashioned knowledge handed down and science
A lot of farmers are switching to organic because they
can actually make a profit. Free and open competition
is how it is done.
When people stop buying grains, farmers will stop
producing them. They don't make squat off them
anyway. Farming/ranching is hard work and they deserve
to make a living.
As I have said before, for alternatives, just
go to your local produce section and look around.
When I am in the meat and produce sections, the
only word I can describe it as is "joy!" (One of
the produce ladies just smiles and shakes her head
when she sees me pick up an eggplant. The eyes
give me away.)
If he's anything like me he's probably frustrated by your failure to
demonstrate that you have any capacity for critical analysis or ability
to read and absorb anything that is not the latest fad in new age
Just in case you are honestly puzzled about why you annoy the shit out of
most people it is because you never actually make a case for your opinions
but waffle on as if you have said something meaningful. You did this with
climate change and you started doing it with T2D. I called a halt in both
of these because you flatly refused to produce an argument or listen to one.
Then foolishly I tried again. My fault, I thought you deserved a chance,
that you might have learned something. I was wrong. Sorry everybody.
You simply don't understand what it means to produce a reasoned case
supported by evidence. You continually give vague and irrelevant opinions
as if they are useful facts. You studiously ignore any requests for
specifics. You shift the goalposts. You cherry pick your data. You
indulge in wishful thinking and call it explanation. You have all the
arsenal of weapons of the true zealot who is totally immune to reasoned
So yes I am frustrated and so is Fran. No, the frustration has nothing to do
with agreeing with your view of the world, I don't get frustrated with
people just because they hold different views, I try to learn from them.
The problem is your UNWILLNESS TO JUSTIFY your different views, that is
supremely frustrating because nobody can learn anything. But I am probably
wasting my time typing as that distinction will be lost on you too. Back to
Oh brother David. You are just not use to dealing with others
who disagree with you. No argument or reference would
rise to meet your standards. You just know you are right
and other who disagree with you annoy you, references, studies
or no references or studies. If we don't agree with you,
we are "Deniers". At times, you are not always a gentleman
about it either.
Yes, now back to gardening. By the way, thank you for the
help with the zukes. You are a treasure trove of information.
You are from California, aren't you? Fran wondered why
I though you'd have a Mexican grocery store near by.
Might have got you mixed up with Higgs.
Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.
Sure, they could switch crops, but lacking a mandate why would they?
People like wheat. People will buy wheat. The farmers could switch
over to amaranth and probably get a good yield. And the market
will say, "What's this shit?" Then go to the next farmer and buy
Farms (as opposed to agrobusiness operations) are cash strapped as
it is. They can't afford to switch from high value crops to low
value crops. And agrobusiness will follow the profit no matter
Create the demand, and then we'll talk.
Tell that to Tzar Nicholas.
Drew Lawson | "Look! A big distracting thing!"
| -- Crow T. Robot.
Excellent point. You are entirely correct.
I say let the market dictate what we buy. We
vote with our dollar for who we want to succeed.
As more and more of us get Diabetes, the demand
will shift. Your odds are now one out of six
you will get diabetes -- perhaps one out of three
in the near future.
Also, the diet industry has discovered that
carbs are what makes you fat. (You piss and
blow out excess keytones [fat]. They are use
So, the market will eventually do its magic. There
will be a lot of kicking and screaming though.
"Healthy carbs", my ass. You should see the crap
those scoundrel's at the American Diabetes Association
wants you to eat -- you'd be diabetic forever!
Carbs are so addictive that I know of one diabetic
man who killed himself rather than stop eating
them. He was eventually crippled to the point
were his wife had to give him his insulin
I know of another man who has lost both his legs, both
his kidneys (he is on the transplant list), has had
a major heart attack, is on oxygen, and who know what
else. He won't stop eating carbs.
Amaranth is still a grain by the way. Feed all the
the grain producing plants (the whole plant) to
cows. I will eat the cows.
I vote for good tasting produce and meat.
As long as freedom is allowed to prevail, the
market will provide what we demand. I see both
being around for a very long time. If you
are in the five out of six that won't get diabetes,
then by all means, have fun.
He seems to believe that some recent (alleged) trend in growing
grapes is going to revolutionize crop yields.
I assume that he is ignorant of the factors that brought the increases
since WW2: industrial farming, ammonium nitrate and monocrop
megafarms (mostly crowing the "carbs" he rails against).
I'm not a great fan of the current state of food production, but I
recognize that it is a current necesity. Most current starvation
is caused by economic/political factors. Reverting the methods of
production would bring starvation caused by actual lack of food.
Drew Lawson While they all shake hands
and draw their lines in the sand
I too am not a fan of agribusiness as it supplies the big supermarkets
and I don't think that many gardeners who grow vegetables for their own
consumption would be.
I note your mention of WWII - I keep wondering why it is that there
would be any need for anyone to 'go Paleo' given the history of food
production and when populations in the first world were doing well due
to access to good food but still had not seen the leap in numbers of
those afflicted with the modern lifestyle diseases that are so abundant
I've been debating whith myself whether that would date to between the
wars of earlier. I suspect the timing would vary a bit according to
which nation was under discussion because I know that WWII and it's
rationing lead to better health amongst the general population. There's
some interesting stuff on that around the web - or was last time I
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.