3 ms·

This is another step in the wrong direction. Animals are very resource intensive and give almost no resources in return. The only way animals were kept in the

This is another step in the wrong direction. Animals are very resource intensive and give almost no resources in return. The only way animals were kept in the past was by using resources humans couldn't use themselves. Cows and sheep grazing on marginal land that can't be used as farmland. Pigs fed on food scrap and in pannage.

thaumasiotes 10y ago
Historically horses were fed oats because oats were viewed as an inferior meal. But humans certainly can eat oats. Animals were also kept on good farmland, because you need them to pull your plough. Cats have frequently been kept in and about granaries to keep down losses to rats. All of which is by way of saying that animals have been kept wherever and whenever people felt they were worth it. That might have been because the cost of maintaining them was low, or because the benefit of having them was high.
- phillc73 10y ago
  > But humans certainly can eat oats. And many of us do regularly, in the form of de-husked, or rolled, oats [1]. I eat them in my muesli almost every morning. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolled_oats https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolled_oats
ptaipale 10y ago
>This is another step in the wrong direction. Animals are very resource intensive and give almost no resources in return. That is a most obscure statement. Where I live, northern Europe, people couldn't survive without animals, until historically recent inventions of transport. Not just cows and sheep grazing marginal land (though that is not insignificant, because all land is "marginal" here) but also because animals have provided much of the essentials materials for life: skins, wool, even the bones were used for material. That is now largely replaced by using mineral oil resources, which will not last indefinitely. And if you are promoting "organic and sustainable" agriculture, remember that to do it, you will need to increase the amount of animals in agriculture - otherwise you cannot get the fertilization and nutrition needed by plants.
- c2352466 10y ago
  We already have an excess of manure. In extreme cases it reaches rivers/oceans and causes algal blooms.

thaumasiotes 10y ago

Historically horses were fed oats because oats were viewed as an inferior meal. But humans certainly can eat oats. Animals were also kept on good farmland, because you need them to pull your plough. Cats have frequently been kept in and about granaries to keep down losses to rats. All of which is by way of saying that animals have been kept wherever and whenever people felt they were worth it. That might have been because the cost of maintaining them was low, or because the benefit of having them was high.

phillc73 10y ago
> But humans certainly can eat oats. And many of us do regularly, in the form of de-husked, or rolled, oats [1]. I eat them in my muesli almost every morning. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolled_oats https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolled_oats

ptaipale 10y ago

>This is another step in the wrong direction. Animals are very resource intensive and give almost no resources in return. That is a most obscure statement. Where I live, northern Europe, people couldn't survive without animals, until historically recent inventions of transport. Not just cows and sheep grazing marginal land (though that is not insignificant, because all land is "marginal" here) but also because animals have provided much of the essentials materials for life: skins, wool, even the bones were used for material. That is now largely replaced by using mineral oil resources, which will not last indefinitely. And if you are promoting "organic and sustainable" agriculture, remember that to do it, you will need to increase the amount of animals in agriculture - otherwise you cannot get the fertilization and nutrition needed by plants.

c2352466 10y ago
We already have an excess of manure. In extreme cases it reaches rivers/oceans and causes algal blooms.