We lack the right bacteria to break down the majority of it. So it amounts to fiber and little else. It isn't zero available nutrients, but in terms of calories and sustenance, there's just not enough available to our system to extend time before starvation enough to notice
Edit: That's the thumbnail version. It's a more complicated no, but I figure the details would be boring as fuck baggage because it's all "we don't have X"
You'd survive longer just fasting. As others have commented you won't get almost any calories from it, but your body will still waste some energy trying to digest it which would amount to a net negative.
I think it is kind of mean of you to talk about this like your mom isn't getting along fine in her pasture.
Are you allowed to supplement it with cow dung?
Because that will be necessary to get the bacteria needed to digest it. But cows also have to ruminate in order to get enough nutrients from grass to survive; youβd have to have grass and cow poop smoothies to get any nutritional benefits from it.
This happened during a certain English attempt at genocide. The answer is no
For a time? Sure. It's only if you want a longer time that things start to get dicey
Wheat is a grass, so... yes? You can live on just wheat products (and water) for a fair while, but it's not nutritionally complete by itself -- so you'll get some sort of nutritional deficiency eventually if that's all you eat.
If you mean true grass, prolly not.
But there are typically handfulls of edible plants in any wild field and most yards.
So, pesticide poisoning aside, you could survive for some time eating greens and and roots scrounged from pretty much wherever.
all 25 comments