Quoted message said:"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.
No one said anything about conversion energy losses. That is irrelevant
to the discussion.
The fact is that grains offered a ready supply of animal feed, in
return the animals supplied meat, milk, fertilizer, and the power to
till more land and grow more crop which in turn fed more people and
more animals, etc.
Grain enabled the formation of small combined farms where animals are
raised along with the crops. The efficiency of that kind of operation
gave rise to cultural and economic development unseen before.
Prior to this they lived as hunter gatherers having to depend on the
hunt for their meat needs. Now they had meat available in their
domesticated animals, which would not have happened without grains and
the resultant agriculture.
The grains enabled them to raise more meat.
And keep your ad hominem to yourself. When you accuse others of being
ignorant of facts and they then prove you to be the more ignorant, you
end up looking like a real idiot. Jackass.
TC