On Wed, 27 Feb 2002 17:35:09 -0500, Todd Moody <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

>No, the optimal foraging rule doesn't assume scarcity.  It
>stipulates that the preferred foods will be those with the
>highest ratio of caloric return for calories used up in obtaining
>them. ... people will still
>want the biggest bang for their foraging buck.

Optimal foraging is still a theory, isn't it?
Seagulls selecting mussels perform optimal foraging, the biggest
return for the least investment. Because the available food amount
determines the reproductional success.
Lions in theory optimal foraging in groups of two animals, instead forage
in larger, less optimal groups.

For humans there may be other criteria more important, than just
maximal energy yield for minimum effort.

For example if there is a risk (of injuries or death) involved
with a foraging activity this should be a by far more important factor
than energy expenditure.
This is why I think hunting big and dangerous animals like mammoth
cannot be a good strategy as long as other food items were available.

If I look at the energy value displayed in the food items on the
AA (Australian Aboriginal) plant food data I see that even limited time
of foraging (a few hours) is sufficient to yield the food for a day.
They are free to choose between various density foods.
The difference is a hour or so more of eating time for less dense items
(fruit) compared to denser (kangaroo) or densest (nuts).
Away from Australia, where there are predators, staying secure from them
would be the most important strategy.
That would mean less lethargic (after meal), less time spent in the
dangerous evening/morning hours, easyer escaping (with some food).

>Since sweet
>potatoes are relatively energy-dense, I don't see why they
>wouldn't be a preferred food when available.

Sweet potatoes are a great choice in micronutrients and are easy to
collect with a minimum risk. Particularly when they were maintained
on a location with a primitive effort (beginning of farming).

Amadeus