As usual, long on assertion, short on demonstrated knowledge; one
definition of which is ignorance. The 90 percent loss in animal feeding
conversion is extremely important to understand the rise of complex
cultures and why animals were not fed grain as their principle food
source, that you are ignorant of this is only added demonstration of what
is perfectly clear about the foundation of your spin on this material.
Here you are having seen 1/3 of a series and not having read the book and
demonstrating not having understood accurately what you did see, and
suddenly an expert is born. This particular area of research has been one
of my academic concentrations for probably longer then you have lived. If
I wanted bar talk I would go to a bar for sodden opinions aplenty.
"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."