Food Question - Trickier Than It First Appears

[Broomstick]

I whip this out on people from time to time as a puzzle of sorts. It also is a test of your biology knowledge.

Name all the non-angiosperm non-animal food sources you can.

That's it. Really.

Of course, it requires that you know what an angiosperm is - something you should have learned along the way but maybe have forgotten.

We all eat foods in this category - but maybe we're not aware that we do.

Part II is to try to determine what a meal composed entirely of these foods might look like.
Make some attempt at a balanced meal - I'm aware that this board has a high percentage of male college students who probably consider and entire bag of Cheetos washed down with a 2-liter of pop to be a satisfactory dinner. That's not what I'm talking about and you know it.

Part III - can you survive long term on a non-angiosperm diet?
Say five years as a definition of long-term. And in this part I'm allowing animal food sources as well.

(I confess this thread is somewhat of an experiment itself - not sure if this sort of puzzle appeals to the SD.net or not)

[The Spartan]

Well, I'm not completely sure what angiosperm is, but if I understood my dictionary correctly it is a flowering plant the bears some kind of fruit or vegetable. Sorry, I haven't really studied this kind of biology in 12 years.

Anyways:

Part I-Carrots, onions, potatoes, peanuts(I think), spinach, lettuce, cabbage.
Part II-Spinach and carrot's in a salad with potatoes and onions sauteed together with garlic.
Part III-I think so. Might get a little boring, but if I was right about what is allowed, it can be done.

[Broomstick]

Yessir - an angiosperm is, indeed a flowering plant. I feel compelled to point out that this does not require a big, showy blossom, and some angiosperms can reproduce without bothering to set flowers, though they are capable of flowering.

However:

Part I-Carrots, onions, potatoes, peanuts(I think), spinach, lettuce, cabbage.
Part II-Spinach and carrot's in a salad with potatoes and onions sauteed together with garlic.
Part III-I think so. Might get a little boring, but if I was right about what is allowed, it can be done.

Is incorrect. Carrots are angiosperm roots - the flowers are known as Queen Ann's Lace. Onions flower, too, if left in the ground long enough. Potatoes are an example of angiosperms that don't need to flower, but can - potato flowers are small, simple, and white as I discovered when growing them one year. The fact that we propagate them by dividing and planting tubers instead of seed does not take them out of the angiosperm camp. Peanuts are legumes, all of which are angiosperms. Which is why meat is allowed in Part III - the list I have of foods meeting this description is low on usable protein because plants such as peanuts, peas, lentils, and beans which are relatively high in protein are off-limits as they are all angiosperms. While we may eat just the leaves of spinach, lettuce, and cabbage those, too, can flower (usually yellow flowers, in fact). Garlic, again is capable of flowering just like onions, to which they are related.

So, very nice attempt, however, not one of your food selections meets the criteria specified. As I said, it's trickier than it first appears.

[Jarl Sven]

I’m curious…why the prohibition on angiosperms?

[aerius]

Mushrooms and seaweed, that's all I can think of.

Which makes part 2 rather limited, seaweed & mushroom soup anyone?

Part 3 I honestly don't know, but I'd take a guess at marginal to probably not.

[Keevan_Colton]

Pine cones etc are fine too...

[SCRawl]

Part III - can you survive long term on a non-angiosperm diet?
Say five years as a definition of long-term. And in this part I'm allowing animal food sources as well.

This part seems the easiest. You can survive long-term on solely animal products, so the answer is a definite "yes". It might not be the most heart-healthy choice, but humans can live quite happily on just meat.

[Molyneux]

Don't forget yeast-based foods...

[tharkûn]

I. Certain alcohol distillations (I beleive moss/algae alcohols don't run to methanol), algae, fungi, some berries (juniper), gingko, sago?, some Polynesian ferns. Those are the historical ones I can come up with off the top of my head.
II. Gingko nuts should be a decent protein source. Sago, which I think comes from grymnosperm should provide some starch. Juniper berries and whatever else in the way of edible evergreen berries should be decent sources of vitamins and some mushrooms/algea aught to round out the meal. And to ease digestion a nice glass of 200 proof moss/algea vodka should wash it all down.
III. Easily. Dairy and meat should be able to provide bulk protein calories, and fat soluble vitamins. Somewhere in the gymnosperm you aught to be able to recover any missing vitamins and survive easily for years. During times of famine people have subsisted on ferns, at least in Polynesia, when everything else was gone. Given the utter crap people susisted on in history past meat, dairy, and non-angiosperm should be easily doable.

[Broomstick]

Congratulations - you folks have done better and faster than most

I’m curious…why the prohibition on angiosperms?

To make it a puzzle.

Actually, about four years ago it was prompted by someone who was discussing time travel to the Devonian period - there was the problem of provisions. The reponse "I'll live off the land" lead to someone pointing out that the Devonian was well before the evolution of angiosperms, which form the bulk of our non-animal diet.

So far, here's my complete list:

Salt (no, we don't usually think of it as food, but it is vital to life)
Conifers - pine nuts and the inner bark of some species are edible.
Cycads - not a common family, but the seeds are edible if properly processed (toxic if not)
Sago palm
Ferns
Ginko nuts
"Sea vegetables" - nori, kombu, Irish moss, etc.
Mushrooms
Several species of lichen
Yeast
Possibly Quorn - but Quorn is presently made with egg white as a binder. If you substituted something like agar or carrageenan for the egg white (both derieved from seaweeds) it would qualify

So - for part II, the meal, you'd basically have a mess of greens and mushrooms with crunchy-nut additions and, assuming you knew how to make them, sago palm starch pancakes or tortilla-like objects. Soup is also a possibility - kombu and shiitake mushrooms make a decent dashi or Japanese soup broth. Done properly, either may well be pretty tasty but I don't think it would serve for a long-term healthy diet.

That's why Part III allows meat - as pointed out, humans can survive entirely on meat, although some of it must be raw in order to obtain enough vitamin C.

I do find it interesting to note that most of the plant products are toxic in their natural state and require cooking at the very least. Some cycads require both cooking and a fermentation process, and even so their long term consumption has been linked to nerve disorders. (One such disorder is discussed in Oliver Sach's Island of the Colorblind). Gingko nuts may also have low levels of toxins, as do some ferns and mushrooms. I think seaweeds and conifers are the only categories that can be eaten uncooked. The lichens I just don't know enough about to say either way.

[RedImperator]

The lichens I just don't know enough about to say either way.

Of course, best case scenario, lichens are completely harmless and slam full of vital nutrients, you're still stuck eating lichen.

[LadyTevar]

I've got one to add that I think isn't a flowering plant: Cattails. Unless that head on them *is* the flower...

Cattail tubers can be used like potatos, the young stalks like asperagus.

[Broomstick]

Nope, sorry - cattails are angiosperms and you are correct - the head is the flower. Or rather, a bunch of very small flowers, before it turns brown. The brown heads are ripe seeds.

[wolveraptor]

Well, in case the food is bland, you can still use salt. And sugar. I don't think sugarcane flowers.

Question: Is it considered an animal food source if it comes from animals, or just if it's meat?

[The Spartan]

Does bamboo flower? If not, I understand that if you double-boil the insides that they're edible. That is, you have to boil them and then re-boil them in clean water.

So if you're in the Orient you can survive off of that for a little while, maybe supplement it with sushi and mushrooms for example.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Does bamboo flower? If not, I understand that if you double-boil the insides that they're edible. That is, you have to boil them and then re-boil them in clean water.

So if you're in the Orient you can survive off of that for a little while, maybe supplement it with sushi and mushrooms for example.

Yes, all grasses (bamboo included) are angiosperms. In fact, they're actually fairly recent arrivals in the biosphere, having only evolved in Oligocene and the Miocene periods (This is well after the extinction of the dinosaurs, incidentally.)

[The Spartan]

I see... I guess I better just shutup now before I display anymore of my botanical ignorance.

[Broomstick]

Spartan, We all start ignorant - it's whether or not you choose to remain so that counts. It would be a shame if folks such as yourself stepped out of a thread like this, since it's meant to be a learning experience as well as a mind teaser.

And wolveraptor - sugar cane does, indeed, flower as it, too, is an angiosperm.

Under these rules honey would be somewhat problematic - as it is produced by bees, that would make it animal source, however, it is mostly nectar from flowering plants, so it seems pretty angiosperm-like in ultimate origin to me.

[The Spartan]

Spartan, We all start ignorant - it's whether or not you choose to remain so that counts. It would be a shame if folks such as yourself stepped out of a thread like this, since it's meant to be a learning experience as well as a mind teaser.

Don't misunderstand. I'm not going to ignore the thread. I fully intend to keep reading and trying to learn more. I'm just not planning on saying anything until I know enough to add to the conversation. I hate not knowing things.

[LadyTevar]

Nope, sorry - cattails are angiosperms and you are correct - the head is the flower. Or rather, a bunch of very small flowers, before it turns brown. The brown heads are ripe seeds.

Damn... much harder than it looks, then.

[Broomstick]

The bulk of our food does come from angiosperms, or animals dependent on them. The exercise really shows that - which illustrates just what a world-altering thing their evolution truly was.

Of course, the world probably did lose some edible non-angiosperms along the way. Most that exist today seem either to live in difficult environments (lichens on tundra), in isolation (islands), or are toxic or a combination of those three. The big exception is the seaweeds - but then, they're not land-based. But note that seaweeds are widespread and edible even in the raw state, unlike most others in these categories. Even mushrooms - while some are benign large numbers are toxic or deadly.

And why are non-angiosperm land forms so problematic? Well, reproduction strategy probably is a factor. Many angiosperms want parts of themselves to be eaten (actually, those that evolved in that direction survived, no one planned it, of course, and plants don't have such desires). But think of fruits, which are juicy and colorful and full of good eating stuff, displayed to attract various beasts that will eat them and spread the seeds hither and yon. Likewise, many vegatables employ similar strategies. Some plants have entirely domesticated a variety of bipedal primate that plants, tends, and replants certain angiosperms species over vast swathes of the planet's land surfaces. Angiosperms produce edible parts because they want some of their parts to be dispersed and they're willing to trade some calories and nutrients for the favor.

Note, too, that some angiosperm species generate toxins as well - hot peppers, for example, generate capiscum which causes a burning sensation in mammals but not birds - and it's birds that spred their seeds, not mammals. Capiscum peppers don't want to be eaten by mammals (though sometimes that happens), they want to be eaten by birds. Then there's the tomato-potato family, which produce edible fruits or tubers (again, parts that are directly involved in reproduction) but concentrate toxins everywhere else - so their seed/tuber spreaders don't eat the parent plant.

Now, let's get back to the non-angiosperms - for the most part, they rely on mechanisms other than animal scattering to reproduce. They don't use animals, therefore, they have no interest in producing edible parts for them, or in being eaten by them, becuase they would get nothing out of the deal. You can see how there would be selective pressure for the gymnosperms, cycads, lichens, and others to generate toxins to discourage nibblers.

If you really want to speculate, this might have accounted at least in part for the huge size of pre-angiosperm herbivores among the dinosaurs. The animals needed to be big because their food contained a lot of indigestible celluose and related stuff, they might have used fermentation to both break that down and to dispose of toxins, and doing that requires a big belly to have room for all that and the time it takes to process food in that manner.

That same technique might also be factor in why cud-chewing animals - who likewise require extensive processing of their food - also tend to be big, even if their food is less problematic. The cud-chewers need a certain minimal amout of space to process food and a minimum size animal to allow for the bulk of food and "equipment"

[Jawawithagun]

Spirulina, though you might volunteer to starve to death instead.