Hi Robert, 
Thanks for the link. Unfortunately, that study is not quite on point. I was
talking about shifting from grain production to truck farming, and asserting
that the production volume, in isolation, would be much greater for
vegetables and fruits. 

However, your point about nutrient value is probably a better way to examine
the issue. Frankly, I have difficulty believing that 80,000 pounds of
tomatoes contains only 1/3 more energy (calories) than 3,000 pounds of
grain, but that may be due to the high water content. 
In addition to the difference in water content, there are many other
vegetables and fruits to consider. Potatoes, yams, turnips, sweet potatoes,
lettuce, cabbage, radishes, raspberries, strawberries, blueberries, etc.
etc. Very few crops, other than berries perhaps, would produce as small a
volume as grains. However, I'd be more interested in micronutrient and
caloric comparisons. 

Best Wishes, 
Ron   


-----Original Message-----
From: Paleolithic Eating Support List [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Robert Kesterson
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 12:20 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Paleo Diet offers the net-base balance needed

On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:54:10 -0500, Ron Hoggan, Ed. D.  
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> I'm sorry, but I don't have any references to support my claim that the  
> same amount of land used for vegetable & fruit production would support  
> more
> people.

Here's an article that talks about a study done on that subject.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071008130203.htm

> I based this statement on personal experience and observation. Just have  
> a look at bushels per acre production of any grain, then compare it
> with the production of any truck farm. The difference is so large that it
> would be impossible to argue with.

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.

-- 
   Robert Kesterson
   [log in to unmask]