Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational: How it exactly works remains a physics brainteaser and the source of much debate in the scientific community.

Topic: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World) (Read 210977 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39500
Also the shallow roots in rainforest trees is not a consideration in this discussion because what we are talking about is shade species versus non shade species. We're not even talking about depth of roots. There are plenty of shallow-rooted species that love sunlight and what's more plants adapt to their environment very quickly which you would know if you knew anything about evolution. What you don't because you've bought Darwin mumbo-jumbo Hook Line & Sinker.
We're talking about leaching.
You are, but I'm not. It's irrelevant in a discussion about what I am proposing to do.
Lol. Your brain.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39501
Rainforest.

Focus.
Leaching

Focus.
None to speak of in rainforest soil. 

But let's think about this ...

If I cut ONE big tree in the rainforest down to the stump and coppice it every year ... just ONE ... a big one ... So that some sunlight can reach a small patch of forest floor ...

What will happen?

Will I suddenly experience leaching?

Why or why not?
Dave, there is substantial leeching in rainforest soils. You're just misunderstanding if you think there isn't.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39502
Rainforest.

Focus.
Leaching

Focus.
None to speak of in rainforest soil. 
Soil-Net begs to differ:
Quote
Tropical soils are often several metres deep, but the soils are often washed out, or strongly leached, with large amounts of nutrients and minerals being removed from the subsoils and considerable thickness of rock broken down to produce soil. Over many millions of years this leaching has left most of the soils lacking many of the fundamental nutrients needed by the above ground vegetation.
Soil net Huh? Well if we're going to believe them, then I guess we need to rescue the rainforest because all those poor trees are lacking in nutrients and no doubt we'll all be dead in a few decades.

What do you (or soil net) propose  should be done?

:popcorn:
See? Misunderstanding. The nutrients are in the plants.
Eta: they are in the plants because in the soil they would be leeched. Cue all some none error in 5...4...3...
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39503
Soil net Huh? Well if we're going to believe them, then I guess we need to rescue the rainforest because all those poor trees are lacking in nutrients and no doubt we'll all be dead in a few decades.

What do you (or soil net) propose  should be done?
Click the link, dumbass.
Ok I did. But I should point out that I didn't say that rainforest soils have not been leached. I just said there is no leaching. As in currently. This link does claim that they have been leached which is an assumption because they really don't know that for sure having not been there millions of years ago when these rainforest were supposedly first formed. And it's probably a wrong assumption because why would there ever have been nutrients in a form that would be subject to leaching in the first place?
You misunderstand.  They are always leeching. There just isn't much to leech in a healthy forest
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • Zombies!
  • These violent delights have violent ends.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39504
Dave, what do you think.clearing half the rainforest does to these soil organisms?
That's a good question.  A lot depends on how the trees are removed. If we just cut some trees down for the purpose of coppicing and sunlight penetration then not much will change other than more vigorous growth of the Sunlight Loving species on the forest floor. You will still have the deep roots of the cut trees in place along with the Abundant microorganism communities surrounding them. So that would not change. This would be my preference over completely removing trees, roots and all.

What on earth makes you think that plant species adapted to surviving on the shaded rainforest floor would suddenly become 'sunlight-loving'?

More of your botanical ignorance.
it's you that's ignorant mainly because you're full of yourself and so you don't read what I write carefully. Go back and reread what I wrote and see if you see anything about me saying that shade-loving species will suddenly become Sunlight Loving. How ridiculous! But what will happen is that the Sunlight Loving species that are already there but I currently being out competed by shade loving species will begin out-competing the shade loving species.  Which of course is fine from a save the Earth perspective.
Dave, think of these nutrients like they are Legos.
There are a finite number of them.  When you get rid of a chunk of canopy, and damage, by extension, the downstream nutrient processors, you want to turn these nutrients into goats. 
By year two, the nutrients will be inefficiently converted into goat meat.  You have changed one type of Lego system into another.  YOU ARE NOT MAKING NEW LEGOS! 
Once the goat population has consumed the fertilizer that was the canopy, you will only be able to put a portion back into the ground.  The system that was so marvelously balanced now is damaged due to a lack of trees, lack of animals that live in those trees, lack of correct beetles to break down their poop, and so on.  You have burned a hole in the jungle, stolen the nutrients to make goats, and now the soil is so barren, you will need to make a bigger hole.
I really should call your department head and tell him or her how badly you are behaving while posing as a credentialed professional scientist.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39505
Rainforest.

Focus.
Leaching

Focus.
None to speak of in rainforest soil. 
That is indeed the fantasy you've concocted.

Scientists who have observed rainforest soil have observed and measured leaching.

Quote
But let's think about this ...

If I cut ONE big tree in the rainforest down to the stump and coppice it every year ... just ONE ... a big one ... So that some sunlight can reach a small patch of forest floor ...

What will happen?

Will I suddenly experience leaching?
Leaching will continue as before, perhaps at a slightly higher rate.

Quote
Why or why not?
Leaching happens in rainforest soil.  In your scenario more rainwater may reach the forest floor, increasing the rate of leaching.

It also matters that the trees slow the water down. Yes, leeching increases when you cut the trees.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39506
Soil net Huh? Well if we're going to believe them, then I guess we need to rescue the rainforest because all those poor trees are lacking in nutrients and no doubt we'll all be dead in a few decades.

What do you (or soil net) propose  should be done?
Click the link, dumbass.
Ok I did. But I should point out that I didn't say that rainforest soils have not been leached. I just said there is no leaching. As in currently. This link does claim that they have been leached which is an assumption because they really don't know that for sure having not been there millions of years ago when these rainforest were supposedly first formed. And it's probably a wrong assumption because why would there ever have been nutrients in a form that would be subject to leaching in the first place?
Time, Bluffy, Time. With Gradual change during that time. (note, this is not to intimate or imply there were no significant short term events just that most of the change on this planet has been gradual. Most events not involving humans occur on the scale of thousands of years to millions of years. Something many humans, and most obviously yourself, find difficult to comprehend.). Maybe you should research the history of that bit of ground. It's been through a lot of changes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_rainforest Check it out.

It's not like there was something else and then suddenly, like snap your fingers, there's a rain forest.
Are we there yet?

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39507
Dave, inorganic fertilisers usually contain NPK. Please learn what"organic" and "inorganic" mean in this context.

Also Dave, rainforests have all the NPK, etc they need because they're continually cycling it through the system. NPK doesn't build up because its being continually taken up by he plants. If they didn't the rainfall would peach it away. Which is what happens when you remove the rainforest plants and replace them with pasture.

The vast majority of all nutrients in the rainforest at any one time is in the living biomass. Your idiot idea removes half of that biomass. When you replace rainforest plants with non-rainforest plants what do you think is going to happen to the symbiotic soil microflora?

IOW, not everywhere is Missouri. Look at the soil profiles Dave. Look. Read. Learn the basics before haring off after your latest guru, and misunderstanding what they say, and the context un which they're saying it.

Actually,  he has gone one better and decided that whatever grows in the clearing will be "grass" for his goats to eat and they will stomp it down and it will stay. 

I wonder how many of the local plants make great browse? Dave doubles down on stupid like no other gamblers
Could the phenomenon of doubling down be characterized by Double Down Dave?
Are we there yet?

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39508
Has anyone mentioned this man before? The Remarkable story of Las Graviotas
I'm not sure how relevant this is to this thread, but it seems it might be, so I will just drop it here.
"When a true genius appears in this world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." (Jonathan Swift)

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39509
Dave all that has to happen for nutrients to be in a form that can be subject to leaching is for them to be water soluble. Funnily enough that's also the form they have to be in for them to be available to plants.
Yes but what you keep missing even though I've talked about it several times is the fact that there's a very short distance between the ass end of a protozoan and the root hair on which he takes a dump.  And there's a very short time span between when this protozoa poop leaves the protozoa's ass and enters the root hairs' mouth.  Yes I'm anthropomorphizing here a bit to make a point. I do realize that there is no actual ass and no actual mouth, okay? The point of all this is that the nutrients don't have a chance to get leached away because the nutrient Loop is so tight.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39510
Rainforest.

Focus.
Leaching

Focus.
None to speak of in rainforest soil. 

But let's think about this ...

If I cut ONE big tree in the rainforest down to the stump and coppice it every year ... just ONE ... a big one ... So that some sunlight can reach a small patch of forest floor ...

What will happen?

Will I suddenly experience leaching?

Why or why not?
Dave, there is substantial leeching in rainforest soils. You're just misunderstanding if you think there isn't.
No there's not. You are an idiot.

It would be fun to study up on the dendrochronology thing and engage you on that topic again. You would fold like a cheap card table. The only reason you think you won is because I didn't really have the resources at the time to study up on the topic properly.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39511
Also please learn the difference between leach and leech.  Good grief. Every time you misspell that word I have these gross mental images of these horrible Critters attaching to my legs and sucking my blood.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39512
No one has missed the point, Hawkins.
The fact remains:  there is a dynamic equilibrium between minerals concentrated in bacteria (or protozoa, etc.) and floating free, soluble, in the soil. The free, soluble, ions can (1) be taken up by another microbe (2) be leached by rainwater or (3) be taken up by a plant root. Yes, proximity of the source increases the probability of (3). But it's still nowhere close to 100%.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39513
Dave, there is substantial leeching in rainforest soils. You're just misunderstanding if you think there isn't.
No there's not. You are an idiot.
::)  

Typical content-free Hawkins "refutation".
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39514
Rainforest.

Focus.
Leaching

Focus.
None to speak of in rainforest soil. 

But let's think about this ...

If I cut ONE big tree in the rainforest down to the stump and coppice it every year ... just ONE ... a big one ... So that some sunlight can reach a small patch of forest floor ...

What will happen?

Will I suddenly experience leaching?

Why or why not?
Dave, there is substantial leeching in rainforest soils. You're just misunderstanding if you think there isn't.
No there's not. You are an idiot.

It would be fun to study up on the dendrochronology thing and engage you on that topic again. You would fold like a cheap card table. The only reason you think you won is because I didn't really have the resources at the time to study up on the topic properly.
Good god you are an idiot
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • JonF
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39515
Dave all that has to happen for nutrients to be in a form that can be subject to leaching is for them to be water soluble. Funnily enough that's also the form they have to be in for them to be available to plants.
Yes but what you keep missing even though I've talked about it several times is the fact that there's a very short distance between the ass end of a protozoan and the root hair on which he takes a dump.
[citation required]

Quote
And there's a very short time span between when this protozoa poop leaves the protozoa's ass and enters the root hairs' mouth.
If there's water instead of air between the protozoa and the root, how long does it take to dissolve?

Quote
  Yes I'm anthropomorphizing here a bit to make a point. I do realize that there is no actual ass and no actual mouth, okay? The point of all this is that the nutrients don't have a chance to get leached away because the nutrient Loop is so tight.
What essential nutrients are in protozoa poo?

  • Last Edit: May 19, 2018, 12:10:51 PM by JonF
"I would never consider my evaluation of his work to be fair minded unless I had actually read his own words." - Dave Hawkins

  • Zombies!
  • These violent delights have violent ends.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39516
Rainforest.

Focus.
Leaching

Focus.
None to speak of in rainforest soil. 

But let's think about this ...

If I cut ONE big tree in the rainforest down to the stump and coppice it every year ... just ONE ... a big one ... So that some sunlight can reach a small patch of forest floor ...

What will happen?

Will I suddenly experience leaching?

Why or why not?
Dave, there is substantial leeching in rainforest soils. You're just misunderstanding if you think there isn't.
No there's not. You are an idiot.

It would be fun to study up on the dendrochronology thing and engage you on that topic again. You would fold like a cheap card table. The only reason you think you won is because I didn't really have the resources at the time to study up on the topic properly.
Good god you are an idiot
At least he gave you a reason for badgering.  A lot of people put a lot of effort in engaging him, just to see him walk away, a ton of unanswered questions in his wake. 
I really should call your department head and tell him or her how badly you are behaving while posing as a credentialed professional scientist.

  • JonF
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39517
Rainforest.

Focus.
Leaching

Focus.
None to speak of in rainforest soil. 

But let's think about this ...

If I cut ONE big tree in the rainforest down to the stump and coppice it every year ... just ONE ... a big one ... So that some sunlight can reach a small patch of forest floor ...

What will happen?

Will I suddenly experience leaching?

Why or why not?
Dave, there is substantial leaching in rainforest soils. You're just misunderstanding if you think there isn't.
No there's not. You are an idiot.

It would be fun to study up on the dendrochronology thing and engage you on that topic again. You would fold like a cheap card table. The only reason you think you won is because I didn't really have the resources at the time to study up on the topic properly.
Leaching has been observed in rainforest soil.
"I would never consider my evaluation of his work to be fair minded unless I had actually read his own words." - Dave Hawkins

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39518
It would be fun to study up on the dendrochronology thing and engage you on that topic again. You would fold like a cheap card table. The only reason you think you won is because I didn't really have the resources at the time to study up on the topic properly.
Good lord.
Do you have the slightest clue how pathetic this is, Hawkins?
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • Zombies!
  • These violent delights have violent ends.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39519
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
How about
1. Stop talking shit about Borealis, I respect her.  She's brilliant.
2. Treat ME with respect and address the lie you told about me,
3. Learn to read.
Go fuck yourself until you can learn how to respect me. Then we'll talk. And if this offends you and you don't want to participate in this thread anymore, then fine. There's plenty of other science threads to participate in.
Wow, Dave runs back to using profanity. 
I haven't shown you disrespect. You used foul language at me.  You run when I try to address this in a gentlemanly manner. 
You lied about me.
Dave?
You are such a coward.  I will keep posting this.  The truth is important, Why keep lying?
I really should call your department head and tell him or her how badly you are behaving while posing as a credentialed professional scientist.

  • Photon
  • I interfere with myself
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39520

It would be fun to study up on the dendrochronology thing and engage you on that topic again. You would fold like a cheap card table. The only reason you think you won is because I didn't really have the resources at the time to study up on the topic properly.

Good old gaslighting, alternate history enthusiast Dave. You lying about what happened doesn't change your idiotic faceplants and literally stupid claims you made in that exchange.

You can't change history just by wishing it wasn't so, lyin' Dave.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39521
No one has missed the point, Hawkins.
The fact remains:  there is a dynamic equilibrium between minerals concentrated in bacteria (or protozoa, etc.) and floating free, soluble, in the soil. The free, soluble, ions can (1) be taken up by another microbe (2) be leached by rainwater or (3) be taken up by a plant root. Yes, proximity of the source increases the probability of (3). But it's still nowhere close to 100%.
I don't know what the percent is. But it's got to be pretty close to 100% because soil scientists like Elaine Ingham tell us that if you measure the soluble fertilizer content of rainforest soils you will barely get a reading at all. Which is really interesting because it tells us that some of the best plant growth on the planet is achieved entirely without a man-made product which most mainstream agriculturalists think is indispensable for growing plants. That is, commercial fertilizers.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39522
What this should tell us is that it is possible to feed the world without tillage and without commercial fertilizers.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39523
But alas, the fertilizer salesmen with their armies of fake scientists are a powerful force indeed.

  • Zombies!
  • These violent delights have violent ends.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39524
No one has missed the point, Hawkins.
The fact remains:  there is a dynamic equilibrium between minerals concentrated in bacteria (or protozoa, etc.) and floating free, soluble, in the soil. The free, soluble, ions can (1) be taken up by another microbe (2) be leached by rainwater or (3) be taken up by a plant root. Yes, proximity of the source increases the probability of (3). But it's still nowhere close to 100%.
I don't know what the percent is. But it's got to be pretty close to 100% because soil scientists like Elaine Ingham tell us that if you measure the soluble fertilizer content of rainforest soils you will barely get a reading at all. Which is really interesting because it tells us that some of the best plant growth on the planet is achieved entirely without a man-made product which most mainstream agriculturalists think is indispensable for growing plants. That is, commercial fertilizers.
Fuck.  LOL.
There she is boyos, the pivot.
ETA: Dave claims to know what most mainstream agriculturalists think. That is fun.
  • Last Edit: May 19, 2018, 12:26:18 PM by Zombies!
I really should call your department head and tell him or her how badly you are behaving while posing as a credentialed professional scientist.