Hi Wally, 
That's another valid point. Economics is a further issue. However, I stand
by my original statement that Cordain may not be right about our being
totally committed to cereal grains. A shift away from cultivating them need
not lead to widespread famine. There are, of course, other considerations in
such a complex issue, but I would want to see an in-depth analysis of the
question before I would be prepared to accept that we are tied to cereal
grains. 

Best Wishes, 
Ron 

-----Original Message-----
From: Paleolithic Eating Support List [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Day, Wally
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 1:53 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Paleo Diet offers the net-base balance needed

>Comparing by volume can be tricky.  An acre of wheat can yield 3000 lbs,
>while an acre of tomatoes can yield 40 tons -- obviously a gigantic
>difference by volume.  However, in terms of available energy (calories),
>the wheat has only about 1/3 less calories per acre than the tomatoes.
>Still less, but not nearly as much as the volume difference would lead you
>to believe.

Another factor to consider - grains can be stored immediately and
indefinitley quite easily. Fruits and veggies, however, require a wide range
of storage methods (drying, canned, frozen, etc.). What should be added into
the above equation - how much of that energy is "lost" because of improper
storage methods and/or waste during storage prep? Obvioulsy, it would be
best if everyone worldwide ate fresh, off-the-vine, food everyday. But how
practical is that? (I can't believe I'm defending grains, but for the sake
of discussion I will :)=