Indigenous americans were better in agriculture than europeans?

Not that fag but plants are typically different sizes, even two of the same plant can produce different numbers of seeds. I'm honestly a little surprised that you hadn't noticed this yet.

>plants are different
I want to hear the explanation how different is modifying a silvester corn and silvester wheat.

>silvester

What does this mean? If you're asking how grains were selected for yield, well, the humans would come along and take the grains from all the plants, then eat most of them, and use the rest to plant for more plants. If you are a plant with an unusually large number of seeds, you have a better chance that your seeds will survive this process and be used to grow next year's plants, so over time the plants with larger yields will be naturally selected for, even without the farmer deliberately planting only the biggest yielding seeds (which in fact they did, which obviously accelerated the process greatly)

>potatoes
Also American

I understand. Yet the natives had developed a method of microclimates to further develop various kinds of crops in the same zone. I don't support OP's claim but I will insist because I know almost nothing about the topic so you guys can help me. Did middle-easterners had an analogous method to accelerate the adaptation of crops?

>potatoes
new world crop
>maize
new world crop

What OP mean by this?

I remember reading about some Amazon tribes making extremely fertile soil for limited agriculture. It was done by mixing some shit and the knowledge largely went extinct as the natives died in droves from European disease before contact with explorers. Like archeologists had found dots all over Amazon that had different, more fertile soil.

Don't dive too deeply into the biochar meme, user.

Doomsday survivalists, hippies, and overpriced fertilizer is all you'll find.

Well duh, Amazon soil is horrible for agriculture so it'd be just glorified fertilizer outside its native environment.

I mean, it's not a total meme - a layer of charcoal beneath your actual growing soil serves as a sort of trap that keeps its nitrogen content from leeching out over time.

But that's about the extent of it. It's not going to "reverse global warming."

No.

the ultimate redpill is finding out african slaves had advanced agricultural expertise

Three sisters, terraced farming, milpas, chinampas, terra preta I would say so, given the technology natives had. Not to mention the sheer diversity of domesticated plants vs those europeans first domesticated.

Idk what you're talking about, unless you mean that one site used for potatoes. Old Worlders had a large range of grains and other edible plants to choose from, they didn't need to maximize every calorie and don't appear to have attempted any kind of systematic breeding program of one particular plant, although of course we can't really know either way.

This is literally his point, that New Worlders are so superior that even Old Worlders live off of New World produce. I mean seriously, learn to read.

Yes, "black soil" they call it, some think it is behind the myths of el dorado and that the Amazon basis supported large and wealthy states when Columbus arrived.

What are you talking about? Nearly all major crops to this day are Old World crops.

The engineering used to create a city such Tenochtitlan is where the real shit is.

user has a point, rice is the #1 global crop.
But you really can't deny the impact that new world foods had on Europe.
But you can't really claim agricultural superiority without domesticating beasts of burden and mounts first.

OP only said europeans not old world which encompasses africa and asia too.

>But you really can't deny the impact that new world foods had on Europe.

Who ever has?

>But you can't really claim agricultural superiority
What does this even mean? People grow the crops they have access to.

OP must have misspoken because it makes no sense to compare Europe alone to an entire hemisphere.

How can cobblets even compete?

>domesticating beast of burden
Like the llama?

>comparing agriculture in 2 very different environments without taking into account environment

You are probably right.

South America seemed to have a stable fertile crescent before the deglaciation. It seems that the post-glacial consequences, floods and landslides have destroyed such lands. As it seems the peruvian coast was a fertile land full of trees and great soil, after the deglaciation consequences, such zones started suffering floods, the Niño started fucking them over. It's pretty well known that the craddles of southamerican civilization were near the sea near predictable rivers. Yet the Niño managed to destroy such conditions and made it difficult to impossible for big populations to settle there. Later, the low capacity for population of such coasts, seems to have had consequences. Mountain people managed to outperform the coastal people or we could say that such coastal people migrated more inland to the mountains and adapted their technology to the low quality soil of the mountains. This would change the situation the southamerican cultures would develop. The center of trade and war was the mountains. The coastal zones were rarely better.

A great example of this change of location would be that 99% to 100% of crops domesticated by natives from southamerica were plants that grew near/on the mountains.

they came up with 3 Sisters farming.

corn, squash, and pole beans.

beans fix nitrogen into the soil. corn provides something for the beans to grow up on. squash is thorny and deters pests.

Intredasting, but there's more. Early agriculture needed the natural environment to do most of the work. Flood plains wiped the slate clean and deposited fertilizer obv. Seasons were also useful, making it easier to clear land. It had to be warm, though not so warm you get a jungle. Mountains provide a range of environments, of which some might be conducive to early agriculture, and also condense moisture from the sea, which the coastal Andes did, obv.

Early agriculture. Yes, hunter gatherers' change of diets was a priority due to having control of the time spent on certain settlements (from november to feb).

It's known that the middle east cultures started consuming potential (future) crops circa 15000BC. Grain food. The process from adopting such diets to acknowledging the crop cycle and creating calendars was a path that every agrarian society from asia to africa has achieved. It was probably a slow change as the populations of those hunter gatherers who had just adopted a grain based diet, were only a few, compared to the dense populations that agriculture could maintain in the future.

I agree that the diet change was mainly thanks to environment.

Mountains do provide a variety of climates and the andean mountains manage to retain the moisture. But the soil quality of the mountaind is poor. The structures, irrigation, possible floods and landslides make it difficult for farmers to settle there. The andean platforms the southamerican farmers developed was able to not only create a more friendly environment for crops and the cycle of chemicals and water needs, which lacked on certain zones, but also managed to create microclimates that could support different kind of crops that couldn't grow efficiently on such places.

The chinampas have been used too in the titicaca lake.

and don't forget nixtamalization, turning maize from a crop you can't even digest properly into nutricious as fuck food

Corn is less labour intensive and grows in less fertile soils than wheat or rice.

It's also ideal for mountainous lands, farms with plow and needs less water.