I did not realize the limitations on indigenous Western hemisphere populations was due to lack of domesticated plants and animals. But to check, lamas were native, right? Just perhaps not suitable as plow animals? Plus mountainous region not good for plowing/good soil either?
Is it also fair to say that the work effort for maize/corn was higher than wheat or other grasses for a given net nutritional value output?
Yes, but the llama (as well as guinea pigs) was in the Andes, so it is not relevant to North America. Very few plants and animals traveled through the isthmus of Panama as it was very narrow and a species would have to cross many different biomes to get to North America.
As for llamas pulling plows, I have never heard of it. Makes me wonder why it was never tried. I can only speculate:
1) Plows are not very useful for root vegetables like potatoes, which were the staple crop of the Andes.
2) The Americas also did not have iron or steel, so it may also have meant that a plow would not have been that effective. A plow with a stone tip might work, but it seems far less efficient.
3) The agriculture in the Andes was rarely on flat ground, so plows might have been very difficult to use.
As for the work effort of maize vs wheat, I will need to check my records. As I remember it, they were roughly comparable, so I doubt it was a major factor. The main problem was a lack of animals who could pull plows.
There were a lot of fine moral reasons for independence, but exploiting the upper Midwest and the Mississippi was a utilitarian demand of untold potential. That Europe was also exporting excess high human capital to populate it was even better.
Had America not been there to put the 48ers and the rest to productive use I wonder how more unstable continental Europe would have been.
> An even bigger barrier for North America was the lack of wild ancestors of domesticated animals, except for the turkey (plus the llama and guinea pig in South America).
Yes, I would not want to have been the first person to try to hook a bull to a plow. But someone figured out that if you cut off his balls, he can be controlled (oxen).
But we do know the results of the attempt and can use logic to differentiate the reasons for successful attempts and failures.
Not sure, but very few animals have been domesticated and virtually all of them were done thousands of years ago.
I think Jared Diamond in his book "Guns, Germs, and Steel" has the best explanation as to why, among the world's 148 large wild terrestrial herbivorous mammals, only 14 were domesticated, and proposed that their wild ancestors must have possessed six characteristics before they could be considered for domestication:
Efficient diet – Animals that can efficiently process what they eat and live off plants are less expensive to keep in captivity. Carnivores feed on flesh, which would require the domesticators to raise additional animals to feed the carnivores and therefore increase the consumption of plants further.
Quick growth rate – Fast maturity rate compared to the human life span allows breeding intervention and makes the animal useful within an acceptable duration of caretaking. Some large animals require many years before they reach a useful size.
Ability to breed in captivity – Animals that will not breed in captivity are limited to acquisition through capture in the wild.
Pleasant disposition – Animals with nasty dispositions are dangerous to keep around humans.
Tendency not to panic – Some species are nervous, fast, and prone to flight when they perceive a threat.
Social structure – All species of domesticated large mammals had wild ancestors that lived in herds with a dominance hierarchy amongst the herd members, and the herds had overlapping home territories rather than mutually exclusive home territories. This arrangement allows humans to take control of the dominance hierarchy.
I disagree. You can take or leave his theory, but I think that he is as accurate as any author on the topic.
If someone comes up with a better theory as to why so few animals were domesticated over thousands of years, then I am all ears. I do not know another rival theory.
Deciduous trees constantly recycle nutrients from the soil to the leaves each spring and summer and then back to the soil after each fall. Those nutrients are of no use in the winter, but they are ready for use in the spring when the trees need to regrow their "organic solar panels (i.e. leaves).
The nutrients do not increase or decrease, they just move.
Remember that we are not talking about the overall productivity of the biome, which is hands down the winner. We are talking about what enables the soil to be useful for agriculture. Nutrients in Tropical Forests are largely in the plants themselves. In Temperate Forests a much higher percentage of nutrients is in the soil where farmers want it.
yes, great set of charts/ graphics.
I did not realize the limitations on indigenous Western hemisphere populations was due to lack of domesticated plants and animals. But to check, lamas were native, right? Just perhaps not suitable as plow animals? Plus mountainous region not good for plowing/good soil either?
Is it also fair to say that the work effort for maize/corn was higher than wheat or other grasses for a given net nutritional value output?
Yes, but the llama (as well as guinea pigs) was in the Andes, so it is not relevant to North America. Very few plants and animals traveled through the isthmus of Panama as it was very narrow and a species would have to cross many different biomes to get to North America.
As for llamas pulling plows, I have never heard of it. Makes me wonder why it was never tried. I can only speculate:
1) Plows are not very useful for root vegetables like potatoes, which were the staple crop of the Andes.
2) The Americas also did not have iron or steel, so it may also have meant that a plow would not have been that effective. A plow with a stone tip might work, but it seems far less efficient.
3) The agriculture in the Andes was rarely on flat ground, so plows might have been very difficult to use.
As for the work effort of maize vs wheat, I will need to check my records. As I remember it, they were roughly comparable, so I doubt it was a major factor. The main problem was a lack of animals who could pull plows.
Another great summary!
There were a lot of fine moral reasons for independence, but exploiting the upper Midwest and the Mississippi was a utilitarian demand of untold potential. That Europe was also exporting excess high human capital to populate it was even better.
Had America not been there to put the 48ers and the rest to productive use I wonder how more unstable continental Europe would have been.
> An even bigger barrier for North America was the lack of wild ancestors of domesticated animals, except for the turkey (plus the llama and guinea pig in South America).
Why not domesticate bison?
If I had to guess, I would choose this one from the list below:
Pleasant disposition – Animals with nasty dispositions are dangerous to keep around humans.
Wild cattle are exactly pleasantly disposed either. Heck, neither are domestic bulls, hence the principle behind the rodeo.
Yes, I would not want to have been the first person to try to hook a bull to a plow. But someone figured out that if you cut off his balls, he can be controlled (oxen).
But we do know the results of the attempt and can use logic to differentiate the reasons for successful attempts and failures.
Not sure, but very few animals have been domesticated and virtually all of them were done thousands of years ago.
I think Jared Diamond in his book "Guns, Germs, and Steel" has the best explanation as to why, among the world's 148 large wild terrestrial herbivorous mammals, only 14 were domesticated, and proposed that their wild ancestors must have possessed six characteristics before they could be considered for domestication:
Efficient diet – Animals that can efficiently process what they eat and live off plants are less expensive to keep in captivity. Carnivores feed on flesh, which would require the domesticators to raise additional animals to feed the carnivores and therefore increase the consumption of plants further.
Quick growth rate – Fast maturity rate compared to the human life span allows breeding intervention and makes the animal useful within an acceptable duration of caretaking. Some large animals require many years before they reach a useful size.
Ability to breed in captivity – Animals that will not breed in captivity are limited to acquisition through capture in the wild.
Pleasant disposition – Animals with nasty dispositions are dangerous to keep around humans.
Tendency not to panic – Some species are nervous, fast, and prone to flight when they perceive a threat.
Social structure – All species of domesticated large mammals had wild ancestors that lived in herds with a dominance hierarchy amongst the herd members, and the herds had overlapping home territories rather than mutually exclusive home territories. This arrangement allows humans to take control of the dominance hierarchy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestication_of_vertebrates
"Guns, Germs, and Steel" is rather notorious for its inaccuracies.
I disagree. You can take or leave his theory, but I think that he is as accurate as any author on the topic.
If someone comes up with a better theory as to why so few animals were domesticated over thousands of years, then I am all ears. I do not know another rival theory.
> Temperate Forests have trees with leaves that fall off in the autumn, delivering huge amounts of nutrients into the soil.
That part doesn't make sense. After all, the nutrients to make the leaves came from the soil in the first place.
Then let me try to explain it another way.
Deciduous trees constantly recycle nutrients from the soil to the leaves each spring and summer and then back to the soil after each fall. Those nutrients are of no use in the winter, but they are ready for use in the spring when the trees need to regrow their "organic solar panels (i.e. leaves).
The nutrients do not increase or decrease, they just move.
And how is the result different from other biomes where the nutrients presumably just stay in the soil or the plants?
Remember that we are not talking about the overall productivity of the biome, which is hands down the winner. We are talking about what enables the soil to be useful for agriculture. Nutrients in Tropical Forests are largely in the plants themselves. In Temperate Forests a much higher percentage of nutrients is in the soil where farmers want it.