"Read it again, buddy. Some grains were eaten by man, the rest of the
grain became forage was used to feed the animals which were in turn used
for food and field work."
No, the conversion energy losses when grain is fed to animals is 90
percent, the large populations of humans that resulted when grain was
consumed would not have been possible had they not eaten the grain
directly in various forms. Even today, if we converted all grain into meat
we could not have the population in n. america we have.
As so often, you speak boldly and with authority about matters of which
you have almost no knowledge. They had animals as meat sources because
they changed the environment with agriculture practices that created
grasslands and by using harvested fields as folder sources, recall the
woman on the show who spoke about this specific point of foraging in
fields.
"Where there were no larger animals to domesticate, development lagged.
In Asia and Europe, they had more animals they could domesticate, such
as cattle, goats, etc., so they thrived culturally."
In asia animals were used almost exclusively as power sources, not meat,
one doesn't eat one's draft animals, except for the pig which is a
foraging animal that lives on agriculture waste and field boundries and
poultry which also self forage and do not eat the products of grains
directly. This is the source of the e. asian diet where 70 percent of the
diet is carbs from grain. Your bold expression about cultural progress is
silly and you have no basis upon which to base it except an attempt to
spin that of which you are ignorant.
"You may actually want to read what you critique. That way your comments
wont look quite as stupid."
A little knowledge, even more when befuddled, is a dangerous thing; but
any corner bar any night of the week is filled with such experts.