17 Nov 2004 18:39:46 -0800 Christopher Green wrote:
(much snipped)


Most plant protein sources are lacking in lysine, tryptophan, or both.
Wheat is especially lacking in lysine. Mixing plant protein sources,
particularly cereal grains and legumes, can compensate for the
deficiency. Thus the agricultural tribes of the Southwest and Mexico
did very well indeed on corn (maize) and beans, supplemented with meat
following a successful hunt (or battle...).

Livestock are occasionally allowed to graze honeylocust, which is
palatable to them. Because of its high tannin content, standard advice
is to limit livestock consumption of honeylocust or carob to no more
than 10% of total forage. Carob, to which honeylocust isn't closely
enough related to extrapolate, has a very high sugar content (to 72%)
and some protein (5% or so).

Acorn woodpeckers have an adaptation that allows them to defeat the
tannins and increase the protein yield of acorns: they harvest and
store acorns, which promptly become colonized by beetle grubs. Then
they eat the grubs. I don't think this approach to enhancing the food
value of acorns would be marketable.

In a sense, modern society is based on wheat, potatoes, rice, corn et al. But I wonder if oak acorns and honeylocust can become one
of the basis points.

Some of the Indians relyed heavily on oak acorns but I wonder if acorns can become what wheat has become.

Not at all likely. The biggest problems would be yield and processing:
you can grow vastly more of any of the cereal grains on the same
acreage, and none of these need extensive processing to make them
nonpoisonous.

Then there's the mouth appeal, or lack thereof, of acorns. If you got
the tannins extracted properly, so they're not bitter, what you're
left with is the quintessence of bland.

Oaks are just productive enough to sustain a hunter-gatherer society
and just palatable enough to be an acceptable alternative to
starvation. They can't be grown or processed economically in large
enough quantities to be a staple in a society in which agriculture is
established and in which land and labor have much value.

Just read in the news today about an estimate that 10,000 species are nearing extinction due to human overpopulation coupled with
global warming. Not only is global warming accelerating but I would then guess that species extinctions are accelerating. One of the
species mentioned on the list was "fir trees". I wonder if oak trees due to diseases is on that list.

Interesting that you should mention fir. Fir bark is also edible and
has been served up as an alternative to starvation in famine
conditions in various societies.

Well I am a bit alarmed that no tree species has formed a staple food supply for humanity and that no perennial either. And that all the
food staples are annuals and grow close to the ground and are not trees. Alarmed and fascinated because we descended from apelike species
that lived in trees and that our future food supply would be based on grasslike plants and not tree species. So this is most peculiar of
a situation and I suspect some physics explanation in terms of energy pathways would give an answer as to why all the human staples are
annual grass like species and none are tree species.

In this regard, I suppose if a tree species ever did contend for a food staple would be the walnuts.

Interesting... and why would grasses be a better energy pathway than trees?

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies