On Fri, 3 May 2002 09:17:58 -0500, Ray Audette <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Two thirds of the Texas corn crop in
>recent years was deemed fit only as animal feed at harvest due to fungal
>contaimination.

Where the fungitoxins, like the pesticide residues accumulate and combine
nicely with the force fed unnatural fat layers of industry "produced"
animals.

>Belive me, American grain producers are selling as many grain products as
>they can and constantly inventing new ways to market their products to
>humans.  They even profit from aid programs that foster dependency on them
> and the totalitarian regimes that depend on them ) at the expense of
native
>food producers ( often prolonging famines while proping-up American grain
>prices ).

You say it how it is.

>If the American land used to produce this surplus was returned to it's
>native state, the resulting Bison herds would dwarf our current cattle
>production.

For me it's a nice idea to return land to it's native state.

However I'm afraid the estimation of you would not work out.
At last, each gram of fat and muscle of a cattle or a bison must be eaten
before by the animal in form of vegetation.

Would you expect that the grassland (it would be wood in most cases)
has a productivity equal to or similar to a corn field?
Expect the bioproductivity of rich unmanaged grassland to be around 10%-20%
of a corn field. 80% less bison for that point.
Likewise the animals don't eat just to get big and fat. They *live*.
And just to sustain life is what consumes around 90% of the food a farmhouse
animal eats. Even for animals growing with maximum speed (force fed, with
hormones) until it's "production" is ready. But such a bison will strive and
trample around for some years until it's big enough.
Thus lesser bioenergy is used for growth and more for sustaining life.

So, 20% of 10% make up around 2% of bison, compared to corn fed cattle,
not even counted the slower growth of bison.

The bisons are possible only for a small small minority.

Amadeus S.