Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum
Raw Paleo Diet Forums => Off Topic => Topic started by: TylerDurden on August 20, 2017, 04:09:34 pm
-
http://www.businessinsider.de/what-farm-animals-looked-like-before-breeding-2016-2?op=1 (http://www.businessinsider.de/what-farm-animals-looked-like-before-breeding-2016-2?op=1)
https://www.sciencealert.com/here-s-what-fruits-and-vegetables-looked-like-before-we-domesticated-them (https://www.sciencealert.com/here-s-what-fruits-and-vegetables-looked-like-before-we-domesticated-them)
-
From your first link above:
But after thousands of years of farmers selectively breeding them, peaches are now 64 times larger, 27 percent juicier, and 4 percent sweeter.
So next time someone tells you we shouldn't be eating food that's been genetically modified, you can tell them we already are.
I understand that genetic engineering is not the same at all than artificial selection, the latter being only an acceleration of natural evolution — and especially co-evolution — a process that has always occurred, long before humans started agriculture. Plants and animals have always evolved in response to interactions between species and environmental changes.
-
You are falsely assuming that humans are at least as competent as Mother Nature....
-
Hmm... did I mean that??
PS: It looks like you misread what i wrote!
-
How can they be 64 times larger? That'd mean the original ones were smaller than an olive?
-
Hmm... did I mean that??
PS: It looks like you misread what i wrote!
Artificial selection by humans is nothing like what Nature does. For example, humans bred all sorts of unhealthy traits into dogs such as flattened faces(leading to breathing difficulties), lower intelligence(makes dogs more docile and tameable), whereas Nature allows more positive traits, more usually. Plus, some modern fruits are the result of deliberate hybridisation by humans. I mean, Nature could never have produced the pluot or tangelo, for example.
-
Yes ok, but genetic engineering is a different technique, even worse.
-
Selective breeding might create some problems but it also reduces others. For example, most of the greens we eat have been selectively bred to have a lower toxin load than their wild counterparts.
And dogs being tame is an important part of their role as work animals for certain tasks.
Rather than discard selective breeding altogether, I suggest we embrace it and attempt to selectively breed plants, fruits, meats, eggs and dairy that are more beneficial for our health than their current domesticated versions. We could start from wild, or from the already domesticated versions.
GMO is a completely different thing, where even according to the scientists doing it, they blast genes from one species onto another in a lab and create a chimera monster that could never arise naturally even under the rarest conditions. Then you end up with a spider-pig or fungi-fish.
-
Even a majority of the plants cattle graze on in USA are domesticated invasive species. It is theorized grasses bred for higher yield and palatability are lower in micronutrients and minerals than wild pastures, possibly causing increased parasite infection in livestock and weaker immune systems. A study was done many years ago I believe in the 40's planting pasture with native European weeds and comparing the preference and production of a herd of cattle grazing a field of that compared to a field of 5 domesticated grass species. Although the weed covered field lowered overall production of food, cows produced more milk when grazing on herbs and would do anything they could to get out of the domesticated plot.
-
Reducing the toxicity of vegetables obviously have some merit however a lot of people are sensitive to these foods and the reduced toxicity may mask the damage in such a way you are unaware you are actually poisoning yourself.
-
What do you mean when you say the wild herbs and grasses lowered overall production of food? Do you mean the total amount of energy that cows can derive from those grasses and herbs is lower than that which can be derived from the domesticated grasses?
I've always favored wild herbs and grasses as long as the land area you have is big enough. If you're in an area where land is very expensive and you have to make the most of what you have, planting the grasses yourself might be best if you know what you're doing.
Also, cattle were domesticated in Europe, so it stands to reason that the wild herbs and grasses of Europe would be the best kind for that species, whereas maybe in the US, you would do best with bison, in South America, with llamas, goats in the middle east, and in Australia, Kangaroos?
In that sense, it also stands to reason that if you're looking to breed cattle outside of Europe, you might want to plant some of the wild species of grasses and herbs that naturally grow in Europe?
Obviously, those species might not grow as well in a different climate. So it's not clear that that you should do that.
-
Usually planting large acreages is extremely uneconomical and most species die out within a few years, however there are methods to incorporate certain seeds into your landscape with animal grazing and frost seeding otherwise preparing a seed bed is very expensive, they say the least profitable thing ranchers do is farm. I said that while domesticated grasses yielded more, native herbs yielded more milk.
-
THIS PART about SHEEP is WRONG.
"Domestic sheep are thought to have descended from the wild mouflon of Europe and Asia (left). Robert Bakewell also played a large role in breeding sheep to be big but delicately-boned, with high-quality fleece and fatty forequarters (right)."
Geneticists have concluded that the wild mouflon is descended from the domestic SHEEP.
Domestic SHEEP has no known genetic ancestor that can be traced so far.
-
I truly love Icelandic sheep, I believe they have more healing properties than typical sheep. It is a 1300 year old breed that is supposedly never hybridized descendants from original European sheep. I believe most sheep breeds besides Nordic type sheep like Icelandics are hybridized with middle eastern desert type sheep.
-
THIS PART about SHEEP is WRONG.
"Domestic sheep are thought to have descended from the wild mouflon of Europe and Asia (left). Robert Bakewell also played a large role in breeding sheep to be big but delicately-boned, with high-quality fleece and fatty forequarters (right)."
Geneticists have concluded that the wild mouflon is descended from the domestic SHEEP.
Domestic SHEEP has no known genetic ancestor that can be traced so far.
There is thought to be a primitive wild sheep ancestor. As regards the theory that moufflon are one of the 2 original wild ancestors of sheep, that is the dominant theory. There is a minor theory that, specifically, the European moufflon are descended from a more primitive, domesticated variety of sheep, but that's all.
-
"There is thought to be a primitive wild sheep ancestor." -- geneticists have not found a wild sheep ancestor yet... not yet.