I know we have already gone over this once...if anyone on the list
objects, we should go off list with this, since it really isn't
directly connected to diet per-se. Still I am interested in your
thoughts on this, it is a topic that I have been turning over in my
mind for several years, and I need opinions from other people.
Amadeus Schmidt wrote:

> The data displays, that good managed grasslands have about the same
> bioproductivity as c field of corn, for example.
> But the growth requires not only rainfall and sunlight, but also enough of
> soil nutrients. Particularly nitrogen.
> This requires intense fertilisation. Under this circumstances grasslands
> produce as much as any other crop.
> If not fertilized the bioproduction is only 10 or 20%, as the example of
> "rare grassland" and ordinary meadow displays.

The tallgrass prairies of the US were some of the the most fertile
natural lands in the world. Now of course some of that natural
fertility is lost, but over time and with good management it could be
regained, not in a year or two of course, but in time. The soil depth
and base is still there, and without unnatural erosion from tillage it
would not take too long. I imagine (this is all my imagining ;--) that
with some initial fertilization and seeding it would resemble a
natural prairie in a few years. Some experiments are underway testing
this on small areas. Very hopeful. The original plants seem to find
their way back, noone knows from where. The seeds must live in the
soil for decades, waiting for their chance.
>
> If you take the original bison living area in America, I'd expect that after
> a couple of years the nutrients in the upper meter of soil will be exhausted
> and go back to the smaller numbers.

It is a cycle, and very little is taken away, unlike with grain or
vegetable farming, where the bulk of the plant matter is removed to
distant cities, then flushed down toilets. Only the meat and fat,
which is mainly protein and energy, supplied by the sun and rain
(nitrogen comes from the air too). Mineral loss would be very low, and
easily replaceable, either naturally or through fertilizer. The high
nitrogen fertilizers would be mostly unnecessary. The bones would have
to be returned somehow...
>
> I haven't seen numbers on the bioproductivity of tropical rainforests.
> But I know that the nutrient availability there is very small, because
> nearly all of the nitrogen is already in the biomass.
> When farmers burn down the rainforest they experience very good harvests for
> some years, but the soil nutrients are exhausted quickly and they move on to
> burn down the next piece of rainwood.

Temperate climates and soils are very different. The lower rainfall
and cooler temperatures, especially winter, allow much more nutrient
buildup. I am not suggesting mass agrochemical farming of the tropical
rainforest areas! Just the opposite.
>

> Even here in Europe much maize is grown for the sole purpose to feed
> animals. I think the reason is that it is easy to keep the fedder in form of
> silage.

Any grass can be made into silage, haylage we call it in the US. But I
am not suggesting this either.


> >A managed range bison herd would have the same life cycle as a managed
> >range cow herd.
>
> Yes, I would expect that. The same is for deers which are kept and fed "in
> prison".

Again, as I imagine, it is not "imprisoned" bison being fed grain, but
free range animals eating mainly natural forage. These animals
naturally form herds of literally millions, crossing and recrossing
the range. A slightly differant species also lived in the eastern
forests in smaller herds. Other large herbivores such as the american
elk (what we call elk is a different animal than the european elk, we
call that moose here) are being reintroduced in to the lower eastern
states even now, and are spreading naturally as they reclaim old
ranges. These are areas that were once farmed but are now
uncompetetive for various reasons such as lower natural fertility,
steeper hills etc. The land is returning to its natural state. The
animals are also. A neighbor of my father claims to have seen a cougar
(in the midwest!) from his kitchen window. Most people do not believe
him, but...



> But this deer or bison wouldn't be wild game anymore.

No, they would be managed, semi-wild herds, like the longhorn cattle
that lived wild all year and then were rounded up in cattle drives for
slaugther. Most of the time they would not recognise the difference.
We would use them the way the American Indians did, but with far less
wastage. Their body fat is the same as a wild animal's. Check out the
range cattle herds of Australia to get an idea what I mean, or the old
system of range cattle in the US.

By the way, we switched from bison to cattle in the US for meat, not
because we liked cow meat more, but because the bison of that day were
not adapted to European cow diseases. Buffalo Bill is a famous image,
but not a reality. The American Buffalo hunters did not kill off the
bison as we were taught in school, cattle diseases did most. Every
place where cows moved in, the bison died in mass plagues, just like
the American Indians. Modern bison are fortunately much more
resistant, as are modern Indians.
>
> Healthy animals to eat just need enormous amounts of space to live on.
> No problem for small populations.

There are enourmous spaces available, in the US, Canada, Australia,
Eastern Europe and Russia, western and central China, South America,
Africa, most of the world actually, except maybe western Europe,
eastern China, and parts of India. Most of the human population is now
packed into very small spaces in cities. They seem to like it that
way. I do not see very many of these city people wanting to move back
to the country life their grandfathers fled (I know MY wife doesn't :--(.

I do not know how to get from where we are now to where I would like
to go. I do not see a very large number of people giving up their
addictive grain based lifestyle for a healthier natural one. But at
least some of these trends are happening now. The government is trying
to stop it, paying farmers subsidies to grow unneeded grain and to
farm uneconomical lands, but the strong economic trend is for these
lands to return to the wild and for production to be concentrated
where it is most efficient economically. The grain based diet is being
produced on a smaller land area every year, not due to soil
degeneration or overpopulation as some fear, but because modern
farming allows much greater production on smaller areas. This trend
seems set to continue. I hope so. It means that some land will,
perhaps unfortunately, be used more and more intensely, but that other
land will have time to regenerate, to become wild and to produce the
wild food I want to eat. It will be ready if we ever need to farm it
again in the future. I do not believe we will, productivity is rising
so much faster than population even now, and population is set to fall soon.

Amadeus, I am interested to hear your thoughts on the situation in western
Europe. I recall vividly my tour of French farms when I was a college
student in the '80s. There seemed to be a similar process happening
there, with marginal farming areas slowly being abandoned and the
population moving to the cities. The small towns in the mountains were
dwindling. The French government is trying to prevent this, due to
political realities, but economic realities push back. Germany?