Why does it seem like Australia was less eager to adopt native foodstuffs than nations in the Americas?

by Real_Carl_Ramirez

Yesterday was the anniversary of the Emu War. While the Emu War was nowhere near as historically significant as the memes make it out to be, it does raise a question: why didn't the colonists simply eat them if they were so plentiful?

Nowadays, the Bush tucker industry is growing, but for much of Australia's post-colonisation history, they were neglected (and aside from the Macadamia, they still are). In contrast to the Americas, where crops like Maize, Tomatoes, Potatoes, Peanuts, Cassava, Common beans, Pumpkins, Sweet potatoes and Sunflowers were readily adopted by the Iberian colonists. It makes me wonder why native crops didn't catch on with European colonists here, when they did in the Americas:

  • Some Australian native foodstuffs have unique properties:
  • While special preparation to remove toxins might have discouraged the consumption of native foodstuffs, some crops native to the Americas such as Common beans and Cassava also need to be specially prepared in order to remove toxins.
  • The fact that parts of Australia are (to some extent) suitable for Old World agriculture also applies to the Americas, but it didn't stop the European colonists in the Americas from adopting native foodstuffs.
wotan_weevil

In the Americas, the competition was between Old World crops with thousands of years of domestication behind them and knowledge of how to grow them in Europe and New World crops with thousands of years of domestication behind them, selected for and adapted to local conditions, and with local knowledge of how to grow them. Many of the New World crops were productive enough to displace Old World crops in parts of the Old World. Old World domestic animals faced much less competition from American domesticated animals.

In Australia, the competition was between foreign crops with thousands of years of domestication behind them and knowledge of how to grow them in Europe and undomesticated Australian plants well-suited to the local environment but without the selection and breeding for high yields and suitability for intensive farming. Old World domestic animals faced much no competition from Australian domesticated animals other than the semi-domesticated dingo.

Thus, the Americas saw the cultivation of both Old World and New World crops, with Old World domesticated animals dominating. Many American crops were taken to the Old World, and had a large impact on agriculture. In Australia, with no domesticated crops for competition, agriculture was based on foreign crops and animals.

More on this in https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/gyl1p4/through_the_columbian_exchange_europeans_gained/

why didn't the colonists simply eat them if they were so plentiful?

They did; native game was an important food source for the early colonists, and continued to be eaten. The first Australian cookbook, Edward Abbott's The English and Australian Cookery Book of 1864, has a chapter on game, including much native game (and also Old World game). Regarding emu,

Roast Emeu.—This is very unctuous sort of food, and much resembles coarse beef in flavour. At the early establishment of the colony it was generally partaken of, but we cannot recommend it to the epicure, unless he has the sailor's digestion elsewhere alluded to. In the first settlement of Hobart Town, and, we believe, Sydney, kangaroo was purchased into the public stores at a shilling a pound, and served out to the only two classes of inhabitants—the military and the bond—then in being, with a few officers. Emeu can either be roasted or boiled.

The emeu has almost entirely disappeared in Tasmania, and other native game are scarce.

As populations increased, native game became less and less available in urban areas.

References:

The English and Australian Cookery Book: https://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-9562000/view?partId=nla.obj-9588707#page/n127/mode/1up