Re: pre-agricultural grains

[Guest guest]

Mike-

>[MAP] Yes, " as we know them " , meaning modern breeds and/or modernly

>processed grains, but there's no question there *were* grains well

>before the last ice age. The idea of having *some* grains is not

>implausible at all!

And I never said I found it implausible that people ate *some* grains

before agriculture, just that I don't think they provided a significant

percentage of people's caloric requirements.

>[MAP] Sure, it might've only been a small fraction, but that's more

>than zero, and begs the question " how small? " .

I don't know, but I'm sure it was radically less than today.

>Of course, given the breeds and overall small role in

>the diet, people might've escaped all the downsides of grains that

>constitute an epidemic in recent millenia.

This is the key point.

>[MAP] I agree that the distinction between the old and new grains is

>very important, and I personally only eat 100% grass-fed beef, but

>theoretically I'm not totally convinced that a tiny percentage of

>grains is inherently bad. The basic " tiny bits of wild grains in

>evolution " idea is very plausible. I mean, I've never seen any good

>arguments to distinguish 95% and 100% grass-fed milk and beef.

I think it would be useful to clearly distinguish between modern grains and

grain predecessors, because nutritionally they're very different

things. That's why I say, essentially as a means of shorthand, that grains

effectively didn't exist until agriculture, even though their grass

seed-head predecessors of course did.

I also think it's one thing for a ruminant to eat some grass seed-heads and

quite another for it to eat some grain. Assays that I've seen indicate

that the CLA content of both the milk and the meat of ruminants drops

dramatically with the addition of even a small amount of modern grain to

their diets. Even 5% causes a significant drop.

>The

>overwhelming majority of real milk consumed in our NT/WAPF circles is

>probably only between 85% and 95% grass-fed.

And it's dramatically lower in CLA than it might otherwise be because of that.

-

[Guest guest]

[] I also think it's one thing for a ruminant to eat some grass

seed-heads and

> quite another for it to eat some grain. Assays that I've seen indicate

> that the CLA content of both the milk and the meat of ruminants drops

> dramatically with the addition of even a small amount of modern grain to

> their diets. Even 5% causes a significant drop.

[MAP] I don't think this is true. I'd replace " dramatically " and

" significant " with " minor " . As I understand it, this is a myth that

has circulated on this list in the past.

[MAP] The overwhelming majority of real milk consumed in our NT/WAPF

circles is probably only between 85% and 95% grass-fed.

[] And it's dramatically lower in CLA than it might otherwise be

because of that.

[MAP] Definitely not " dramatic " ! I've seen numbers, even from a

local 100% grass farmer who participated in a study! Supermarket milk

has about half as much CLA as the best 100% grass-fed stuff. You

might call that " dramatic " , but think about what kind of feeding

practices go into _supermarket_ milk! Think about it, even the worst

crap from the supermarket can give you as much CLA is you just drink

two glasses instead of one! There's no question that the CLA content

of any WAPF-quality milk is the same order of magnitude.

Mike

SE Pennsylvania

The best way to predict the future is to invent it. --Alan Kay

[Guest guest]

> [Carol] (I also disagree with her on early man having grains. She's

> about the only person I've heard say that.)

>

> [] Yeah, I'm with you on that one. It's very implausible for several

> reasons. First, grains as we know them simply didn't *exist* more than

> 10,000 years ago, and even then, most modern grains didn't arrive on the

> scene until much later.

>

> [MAP] Yes, " as we know them " , meaning modern breeds and/or modernly

> processed grains, but there's no question there *were* grains well

> before the last ice age. The idea of having *some* grains is not

> implausible at all!

I've seen archaeological assessments of Cahokia, Mound Builder culture

around the southern Mississippi with quite a bit of use of chenopodium seeds

which do make a flour when ground. I'm terrible with dates, there was little

if any agriculture, this was likely the food of the lower working class as

it was hierarchial and remains from that site show some died from teeth

infections. Almost remember Elainie and I discussing this previously.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

Wanita-

>I've seen archaeological assessments of Cahokia, Mound Builder culture

>around the southern Mississippi with quite a bit of use of chenopodium seeds

>which do make a flour when ground. I'm terrible with dates, there was little

>if any agriculture, this was likely the food of the lower working class as

>it was hierarchial and remains from that site show some died from teeth

>infections. Almost remember Elainie and I discussing this previously.

Very interesting -- thanks! Still, this is hardly an endorsement of

starchy flours as a healthy traditional food even when made in paleo times.

-

[Guest guest]

Mike-

>[] I also think it's one thing for a ruminant to eat some grass

>seed-heads and

> > quite another for it to eat some grain. Assays that I've seen indicate

> > that the CLA content of both the milk and the meat of ruminants drops

> > dramatically with the addition of even a small amount of modern grain to

> > their diets. Even 5% causes a significant drop.

>

>[MAP] I don't think this is true. I'd replace " dramatically " and

> " significant " with " minor " . As I understand it, this is a myth that

>has circulated on this list in the past.

Not from the primary sources I've seen. Eatwild.com doesn't seem to have

as much as it used to, but a little more cursory skimming yielded some

useful info.

>>A diet rich in grass is the recipe for high CLA milk and meat. But the

>>grass has to be living, not cut. A new ish study shows that cutting

>>the grass and feeding it to dairy cows that very same day cuts CLA levels

>>by 53 percent. Exactly why harvesting the grass interferes with CLA

>>production is not known.

>>

>>( " Effects of cutting and ensiling grass and individual cow variation on

>>levels of CLA in Bovine Milk. " Nick Offer, Food Systems Division, SAC,

>>Auchincruive, Scotland. " )

>>American dairy products have far less CLA than dairy products from most

>>other countries, largely due to our growing reliance on confinement

>>feeding. Judging from animal studies and a few human studies (discussed

>>in earlier postings) a diet relatively low in CLA could be linked with an

>>increased risk of cancer.

>>

>>(Lin et al, 1995. Fritsche and Steinhart, 1998.)

The accompanying chart indicates that American dairy (i.e. factory farm

dairy) has about 6mg CLA/g fat compared to 16 or 17mg/g for German and

Irish dairy.

>>CLA in North American hunter/gatherer diets.

>>

>>CLA, the cancer-fighting fat, has been found in North American game

>>animals, suggesting that CLA has been a part of the human diet since the

>>first spear was thrown. Deer, elk, and moose have about the same amount

>>of CLA as cattle. Surprisingly, mountain lions and black bears have more

>>(7 and 9 mg/g of fat, respectively) even though they are not herbivores.

>>

>>Now, when is someone going to test and publish the CLA levels of

>>free-range bison?

I don't know why it's that surprising, but what the heck. Speaking of

which, anyone know a good source of bear meat? I'd love to try it.

>>A welcome source of high CLA butter

>>

>>To our knowledge, there are no American farms or cooperatives that are

>>currently marketing butter from 100% grassfed cows. Although cheese from

>>all grassfed cows is available from many suppliers on the Eat Wild

>>Pastured Products directory, grassfed butter cannot be found. Restrictive

>>government regulations and lack of consumer awareness keep small-scale

>>butter operations from being profitable.

>>

>>Until a US supplier gets up and running, it is possible to purchase

>>excellent butter imported from Ireland by the Kerrygold company. The

>>butter is made from cows that are raised on pasture or grass silage,

>>making it five times higher in CLA and also higher in vitamin E and beta

>>carotene than commercial butter, whether organic or non-organic. It costs

>>about twice as much as ordinary butter and about the same as organic

>>butter. It is yellower than butter from cows raised in confinement, melts

>>at a lower temperature, and has a terrific taste. Look for Kerrygold

>>butter in up-scale supermarkets and specialty stores. To see if there's a

>>store in your neck of the woods, search Kerrygold for " where to buy. " You

>>can also order their butter and cheese on-line from

>>http://www.foodireland.com (Once at the site, go to the " Irish Deli "

>>section.) You may be able to convince your local supermarket to stock it,

>>eliminating the high cost of shipping.

I've heard the 5x figure a lot, but I don't know how reliable it is.

>>Beyond Organic

>>

>>Many people purchase organic milk in hopes of getting superior nutrition.

>>But most of the large organic dairies feed their cows a significant

>>amount of grain and corn silage, types of feed that diminish the cows'

>>production of conjugated linoleic acid, or CLA. The graph below shows the

>>CLA content of milk from a Pennsylvania herd of 100% pasture-fed cows

>>versus milk from one of the nation's leading organic dairies. When it

>>comes to dairy cows, grassfed is best.

The accompanying graph indicates that animals fed " all grass " yield

something like 19.5mg CLA/g butterfat compared to about 7mg/g for " organic " .

None of this is as useful as the chart I once found comparing CLA levels in

both animal fat and butterfat from 100% grassfed animals to fats from

grassfed animals fed various levels of grain supplements, but I can't find

it at the moment and I don't have time to mount a serious search for it,

unfortunately.

>[MAP] Definitely not " dramatic " ! I've seen numbers, even from a

>local 100% grass farmer who participated in a study! Supermarket milk

>has about half as much CLA as the best 100% grass-fed stuff.

Well, as you can see from even the data above, that's wildly optimistic.

-

[Guest guest]

>I've seen archaeological assessments of Cahokia, Mound Builder culture

>around the southern Mississippi with quite a bit of use of chenopodium seeds

>which do make a flour when ground. I'm terrible with dates, there was little

>if any agriculture, this was likely the food of the lower working class as

>it was hierarchial and remains from that site show some died from teeth

>infections. Almost remember Elainie and I discussing this previously.

>

>Wanita

The use of grains goes up proportionately with " civilization " ... the " Mound

Builders "

were a civilization, complete with houses etc. To actually farm, harvest, and

store

grains requires buildings, and folks to gaurd the buildings. Otherwise they

sprout

or get moldy, or get stolen or eaten by critters.

http://medicine.wustl.edu/~mckinney/cahokia/welcome.html

According to archaeological finds, the city of Cahokia was inhabited from about

A.D. 700 to 1400. At its peak, from A.D. 1100 to 1200, the city covered nearly

six square miles. Houses were arranged in rows and around open plazas, and the

main agricultural fields lay outside the city. The site is named for a subtribe

of the Illini - the Cahokia - who occupied the area when the French arrived.

Archaeological investigations and scientific tests have provided what is known

of the once-thriving community.

This all gets covered a LOT in " Guns, Germs, and Steel " . Making

a fair bit of flour would be very difficult, if not impossible,

for the Paleo folks, who moved around a lot, following the herds,

for a number of reasons:

1. They would have to lug around the grinding stones.

2. They would have to lug around the bags of grains too.

3. They didn't have horses or camels.

4. Grains only come in season once or twice a year, so

again, without the ability to lug them, they couldn't

eat them except for a short period each year.

5. Having those big herds of animals handy, there would

be very little motivation to lug grains and grinding

stones around.

They may have chewed seed heads, but the seeds typically

fall to the ground as soon as they get ripe. Try eating

a seed head sometime though ... they aren't very good!

Grains don't get interesting to eat until they are ground

and baked, or at least boiled in some water or toasted. Which they

may have done, if they were camped in a field when the

seed heads were ripe. But it would still be a very

minimal part of the diet.

Humans lived the Paleo nomadic life for maybe a million

years. The Neolithic life has only been around for at

most, 5,000 to 10,000 years (far less for some races). Which isn't

much time to get used to eating grains ...

Heidi Jean

The trouble with the world is that the

stupid are cocksure and the

intelligent are full of doubt. -Bertrand

[Guest guest]

Heidi

That's one of the best arguments I've ever seen to show that the earliest

people ate lots of meat. I never thought about the difficulties of hauling

all that paraphernalia around.

To eat a head of grain put it in your hand and rub it between your palms

until the grains come out of the covering. With wheat, if you chew it just

right, you can get gum.

Enjoy! ;-)

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

The use of grains goes up proportionately with " civilization " ... the " Mound

Builders "

were a civilization, complete with houses etc. To actually farm, harvest,

and store

grains requires buildings, and folks to gaurd the buildings. Otherwise they

sprout

or get moldy, or get stolen or eaten by critters.

http://medicine.wustl.edu/~mckinney/cahokia/welcome.html

According to archaeological finds, the city of Cahokia was inhabited from

about A.D. 700 to 1400. At its peak, from A.D. 1100 to 1200, the city

covered nearly six square miles. Houses were arranged in rows and around

open plazas, and the main agricultural fields lay outside the city. The site

is named for a subtribe of the Illini - the Cahokia - who occupied the area

when the French arrived. Archaeological investigations and scientific tests

have provided what is known of the once-thriving community.

This all gets covered a LOT in " Guns, Germs, and Steel " . Making

a fair bit of flour would be very difficult, if not impossible,

for the Paleo folks, who moved around a lot, following the herds,

for a number of reasons:

1. They would have to lug around the grinding stones.

2. They would have to lug around the bags of grains too.

3. They didn't have horses or camels.

4. Grains only come in season once or twice a year, so

again, without the ability to lug them, they couldn't

eat them except for a short period each year.

5. Having those big herds of animals handy, there would

be very little motivation to lug grains and grinding

stones around.

They may have chewed seed heads, but the seeds typically

fall to the ground as soon as they get ripe. Try eating

a seed head sometime though ... they aren't very good!

Grains don't get interesting to eat until they are ground

and baked, or at least boiled in some water or toasted. Which they

may have done, if they were camped in a field when the

seed heads were ripe. But it would still be a very

minimal part of the diet.

Humans lived the Paleo nomadic life for maybe a million

years. The Neolithic life has only been around for at

most, 5,000 to 10,000 years (far less for some races). Which isn't

much time to get used to eating grains ...

Heidi Jean

The trouble with the world is that the

stupid are cocksure and the

intelligent are full of doubt. -Bertrand

[Guest guest]

>[Judith] That's one of the best arguments I've ever seen to show that the

earliest

>people ate lots of meat. I never thought about the difficulties of hauling

>all that paraphernalia around.

[HJ] Thanks!

>[Judith] To eat a head of grain put it in your hand and rub it between your

palms

>until the grains come out of the covering. With wheat, if you chew it just

>right, you can get gum.

[HJ] I used to do that ... I actually did grow some wheat in my backyard (true

confessions!).

I used to eat the bird's birdseed too, crunchy millet is pretty good.

I suspect though, that unless you have really good teeth and a lot

of patience, it doesn't all get digested.

Heidi [HJ] [HTG]

The trouble with the world is that the

stupid are cocksure and the

intelligent are full of doubt. -Bertrand

[Guest guest]

I grew up on a farm in the 1950's. Never ate any quantity. Just a few times

a year when the wheat was ready for harvest.

Enjoy! ;-)

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

>[Judith] That's one of the best arguments I've ever seen to show that the

earliest

>people ate lots of meat. I never thought about the difficulties of hauling

>all that paraphernalia around.

[HJ] Thanks!

>[Judith] To eat a head of grain put it in your hand and rub it between your

palms

>until the grains come out of the covering. With wheat, if you chew it just

>right, you can get gum.

[HJ] I used to do that ... I actually did grow some wheat in my backyard

(true confessions!).

I used to eat the bird's birdseed too, crunchy millet is pretty good.

I suspect though, that unless you have really good teeth and a lot

of patience, it doesn't all get digested.

Heidi [HJ] [HTG]

The trouble with the world is that the

stupid are cocksure and the

intelligent are full of doubt. -Bertrand

[Guest guest]

> [HJ] I used to do that ... I actually did grow some wheat in my backyard (true

confessions!).

> I used to eat the bird's birdseed too, crunchy millet is pretty good.

> I suspect though, that unless you have really good teeth and a lot

> of patience, it doesn't all get digested.

>

[Aven] When I was kid, we used to steal some of the horse's

oats! Yum!

>

>

> Heidi [HJ] [HTG]

>

> The trouble with the world is that the

> stupid are cocksure and the

> intelligent are full of doubt. -Bertrand

[Guest guest]

This isn't necessarily about grains but it goes along with the thread.

To me the only green bean that's fit to eat is picked in the garden. Any

dirt that may be on it is wiped off on a maybe clean pant leg and the bean

is then savored with absolute delight.

Enjoy! ;-)

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

> [HJ] I used to do that ... I actually did grow some wheat in my backyard

(true

confessions!).

> I used to eat the bird's birdseed too, crunchy millet is pretty good.

> I suspect though, that unless you have really good teeth and a lot

> of patience, it doesn't all get digested.

>

[Aven] When I was kid, we used to steal some of the horse's

oats! Yum!

>

>

> Heidi [HJ] [HTG]

>

> The trouble with the world is that the

> stupid are cocksure and the

> intelligent are full of doubt. -Bertrand