|
|
|
|
|
by taion
1140 days ago
|
|
The premise of the argument seems wrong. Even in just Europe, there’s evidence for an increase in animal size during the Roman period, a decrease during the early middle ages, and then an increase into the high middle ages, e.g. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12520-021-01426-w These correspond to economic changes which made different sizes of animal more appropriate. Size and productivity aren’t the only criteria anyway – disease resistance, hardiness, or ease of feeding seem like they’d be just as important to subsistence farmers. Earlier techniques may have been less good than modern ones, but they quite evidently worked to some extent. Specialized horse breeds had gotten to the point where they needed to be specially fed way before the start of the period in the book reviewed here! Instead of positing a lack of understanding, the observed phenomenon is likely more a factor of limitations in documentary evidence (how many people engaged in stockbreeding were actually writing books anyway?) and in the actual goals of the people involved around optimizing for robustness and practicality over pure productiveness. |
|