Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational: Wading helps.

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 #39625
It's one thing to be a retard if you can't help it. It's quite another thing to be a retard and think that you're smart.

  • uncool
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39626
Yes. Yes it is.

Much like being dishonest when claiming honesty, and excoriating others for lying.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39627
No of course not.
I've noticed over the years that quite a few people talk out their asses about things they don't know. You would think with all their science training that they would make tentative statements instead of bold authoritative statements especially when it's obvious to everyone that they haven't studied the topic. It seems that the primary motivation for this ass talking is the need to always take the opposite position from Dave. That's their Orthodoxy and it clouds lots of their posts.
Hmm. I sense a tantrum coming.
Has it finally dawned on you that I'm right about this topic? That opening up the rainforest canopy a bit isn't going to hurt it at all? And that plenty of good stuff will immediately start growing, in fact stuff that herbivores like to eat?
I guess the irony of this juxtaposition of posts will sail right over your head.
"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 #39628
What astounds me is that Dave has been there. On the ground. Seen rainforest in all its splendour. And yet, here we are.

I can only guess he has a sort of self-inflicted blindness when it comes to plants, be they daisies or vanilla orchids or lambkill.

I wonder how many of those edge colonising plants are things like dumb cane or bead vine or castor plant or whatever plant it is that poison dart frogs ingest their poison from.
Probably most of them. And all my goats and sheep will probably die and the ones that don't will yield poison milk and the Wai Wai people will drink it and die no doubt.

Lol

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39629
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.
Dave in the rainforest as much as possible is cycled as quickly as possible. It isn't cut down and exported hundreds of miles off site. So you don't need to add commercial (or indeed any) fertilisers, because the nutrients that aren't leached stay on site, and the system has adapted to cycle the nutrients that are susceptible to leaching as rapidly as possible, and most of those are locked up in the canopy.

The reason you barely get a reading for soluble fertilizer content in the rainforests is because if it wasn't sucked up almost as soon as it was produced by the trees it would get leached away. Which is what happens when you get rid of the trees. What little nutrients you put back by burning or composting the cleared forests rapidly leach away. There isn't a store of nutrients that you can rely on as in Missouri or other grasslands.


I agree with most of this.

And I agree that if you remove large numbers of trees like the mega farms do then what you are saying here is generally what will happen.

BUT ...

I'm not proposing to remove large numbers of trees. In fact I've asked a question about what do you think would happen if I just removed one large tree, and I didn't even remove it completely but left the roots and stump in place for coppicing.

What say you?
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.
Dave in the rainforest as much as possible is cycled as quickly as possible. It isn't cut down and exported hundreds of miles off site. So you don't need to add commercial (or indeed any) fertilisers, because the nutrients that aren't leached stay on site, and the system has adapted to cycle the nutrients that are susceptible to leaching as rapidly as possible, and most of those are locked up in the canopy.

The reason you barely get a reading for soluble fertilizer content in the rainforests is because if it wasn't sucked up almost as soon as it was produced by the trees it would get leached away. Which is what happens when you get rid of the trees. What little nutrients you put back by burning or composting the cleared forests rapidly leach away. There isn't a store of nutrients that you can rely on as in Missouri or other grasslands.


I agree with most of this.

And I agree that if you remove large numbers of trees like the mega farms do then what you are saying here is generally what will happen.

BUT ...

I'm not proposing to remove large numbers of trees. In fact I've asked a question about what do you think would happen if I just removed one large tree, and I didn't even remove it completely but left the roots and stump in place for coppicing.

What say you?
Hey baby, can I stick it in just a little bit. I'm sure it won't cause any problems. Just a little tiny bit.
Are we there yet?

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39630
Dave in the rainforest as much as possible is cycled as quickly as possible. It isn't cut down and exported hundreds of miles off site. So you don't need to add commercial (or indeed any) fertilisers, because the nutrients that aren't leached stay on site, and the system has adapted to cycle the nutrients that are susceptible to leaching as rapidly as possible, and most of those are locked up in the canopy.
And while the rainforest flora have evolved to grab those nutrients as efficiently as possible from that thin skin of topsoil, they obviously can't be 100% efficient. The occasional ion that is not snagged by a plant or a microbe and gets washed into the underlying soil is leached and gone for good.  There has to be input from somewhere.

African dust keeps Amazon blooming
Quote
Dust from one of the world's most desolate places is providing essential fertilizer for one of the most lush, scientists have discovered. Significant amounts of plant nutrients have been found in atmospheric mineral dust blowing from a vast central African basin to the Amazon, where it could compensate for poor rainforest soils. ...

"The Amazon is essentially a leached or leaching system," says Bristow. Nutrients in the soil are washed away by rains. "So although it is very productive, it is actually quite nutrient-poor."

IIRC this came up in a previous Hawkins-fisking years ago in another context.
He still hasn't figured out how to keep vegetation growing while the nutrients are tied up in his goats as goat meat, I wonder where the hell he thinks nutrients will come from?
Goat shit. Good old 100% grass fed raw goat shit. It's magically nutritious.
Are we there yet?

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39631
Dave in the rainforest as much as possible is cycled as quickly as possible. It isn't cut down and exported hundreds of miles off site. So you don't need to add commercial (or indeed any) fertilisers, because the nutrients that aren't leached stay on site, and the system has adapted to cycle the nutrients that are susceptible to leaching as rapidly as possible, and most of those are locked up in the canopy.
And while the rainforest flora have evolved to grab those nutrients as efficiently as possible from that thin skin of topsoil, they obviously can't be 100% efficient. The occasional ion that is not snagged by a plant or a microbe and gets washed into the underlying soil is leached and gone for good.  There has to be input from somewhere.

African dust keeps Amazon blooming
Quote
Dust from one of the world's most desolate places is providing essential fertilizer for one of the most lush, scientists have discovered. Significant amounts of plant nutrients have been found in atmospheric mineral dust blowing from a vast central African basin to the Amazon, where it could compensate for poor rainforest soils. ...

"The Amazon is essentially a leached or leaching system," says Bristow. Nutrients in the soil are washed away by rains. "So although it is very productive, it is actually quite nutrient-poor."

IIRC this came up in a previous Hawkins-fisking years ago in another context.
Oh here we go again. This was beautiful. The Sahara Desert is actually a good thing because it keeps the Amazon rainforest going.

ROFL
Oh dear, another major oops for Bluffy.
Oh well, another subject for him to get schooled on and someday down the line, he will have to be reminded of it.
Are we there yet?

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39632
Trump isn't a real business man.

Trump is going to start World War 3 with China.

Trump is going to piss off China and not be able to reduce the trade deficit.

Trump is not going to be in office in January of 2019 and will probably wind up in jail.

And last but not least... You can't raise goats and sheep in light gaps in the rainforest.

Oh my sides!
I didn't say you cant raise goats and sheep at edge zones. I said something different.  Your brain.  Wow.
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 #39633
Zombies has gone "Full RAFH"
Congratulations Zombies, I welcome you to the club.
Please remember to bring no disgrace upon this sacred institution, founded by our den mother, Pingu.
Are we there yet?

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39634
Oh yeah you said that you can't do HMG with the results that I'm expecting. Whatever that's supposed to mean.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39635
"You won't be doing any HMG with any results that you imagine."

Well considering that you don't even know what HMG is, how can you say that?
Bunch, move, rest. Soil gets thicker.  Is it more complicated than that? Hmm?
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 #39636
Dave in the rainforest as much as possible is cycled as quickly as possible. It isn't cut down and exported hundreds of miles off site. So you don't need to add commercial (or indeed any) fertilisers, because the nutrients that aren't leached stay on site, and the system has adapted to cycle the nutrients that are susceptible to leaching as rapidly as possible, and most of those are locked up in the canopy.
And while the rainforest flora have evolved to grab those nutrients as efficiently as possible from that thin skin of topsoil, they obviously can't be 100% efficient. The occasional ion that is not snagged by a plant or a microbe and gets washed into the underlying soil is leached and gone for good.  There has to be input from somewhere.

African dust keeps Amazon blooming
Quote
Dust from one of the world's most desolate places is providing essential fertilizer for one of the most lush, scientists have discovered. Significant amounts of plant nutrients have been found in atmospheric mineral dust blowing from a vast central African basin to the Amazon, where it could compensate for poor rainforest soils. ...

"The Amazon is essentially a leached or leaching system," says Bristow. Nutrients in the soil are washed away by rains. "So although it is very productive, it is actually quite nutrient-poor."

IIRC this came up in a previous Hawkins-fisking years ago in another context.
Oh here we go again. This was beautiful. The Sahara Desert is actually a good thing because it keeps the Amazon rainforest going.

ROFL
It is an important factor in keeping the rainforest going. 



There's a similar effect of dust from the Gobi fertilizing Hawaii. It's absolutely critical. Hawaii gets the a regular, well in a geologic sense, dusting from wind storms coming from the Asian mainland.
Are we there yet?

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39637
Cut the trees and the water goes in the creek faster. The faster it moves, even underground,  the more soluble material goes with it (though above ground movement does also increase and takes more solid material through erosion too). If you cut down the trees you can't keep the water out of the creek is a shorthand way to say all that though. Hmg is not going to affect that much of the system to overcome the effect of the water.
If what people are saying is true about rainforest tree roots being shallow, and we cut down some of them, except we don't kill them, we leave the stumps for coppicing and other plants grow better because of more sunlight reaching them, then I fail to see how any water flow would be affected.  You seem to be reciting things you've read while not really engaging your brain.  I encounter this constantly.  It's an unfortunate human phenomenon.
First of all, there's no "if" involved in the validity of rain forest tree roots being shallow, they are shallow because that's where what nutrients there are reside in the very thin soils. Soils that are typically very high pH. It's not a question of "if", it's an observed fact. The reason tree roots go deep is for two reasons, to get water (with dissolved nutrients) or to hold on against wind, current or land slippage.
Secondly, identify the rain forest trees that can be coppiced. That may throw a bit of a monkey wrench into your whole plan.
Yes, when sunlight reaches the forest floor, there's an explosion of growth, mostly, as others have said, of young saplings. In a small patch, such as opened up by removing one tree, there might initially be an explosion of other plants like grasses, assuming there's some source of seed near by. But those will be quickly overtaken by the shrubs that will then be quickly overtaken by the saplings.
Eventually, the soils will return to a low nutrient status. Either by uptake of the various growing plants or by leaching.
Are we there yet?

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39638
Cut the trees and the water goes in the creek faster. The faster it moves, even underground,  the more soluble material goes with it (though above ground movement does also increase and takes more solid material through erosion too). If you cut down the trees you can't keep the water out of the creek is a shorthand way to say all that though. Hmg is not going to affect that much of the system to overcome the effect of the water.
If what people are saying is true about rainforest tree roots being shallow, and we cut down some of them, except we don't kill them, we leave the stumps for coppicing and other plants grow better because of more sunlight reaching them, then I fail to see how any water flow would be affected.  You seem to be reciting things you've read while not really engaging your brain.  I encounter this constantly.  It's an unfortunate human phenomenon.
Now, quite a bit of the rain doesn't reach the ground, and what does is slowed by caroming off leaves and whatnot..

So you are proposing to add water that hits the ground harder.

And make many other plants grow much worse, destroying the ecosystem.

Many rainforest trees cannot be coppiced.
You are talking out your ass. Come on man. You can do better than that.
Well then, Bluffy, present your refutations. That's all you have to do and JonF will be really embarrassed. And we of the Darwin Club will make him sit in a corner with a dunce hat on.
Are we there yet?

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39639
No of course not.
I've noticed over the years that quite a few people talk out their asses about things they don't know. You would think with all their science training that they would make tentative statements instead of bold authoritative statements especially when it's obvious to everyone that they haven't studied the topic. It seems that the primary motivation for this ass talking is the need to always take the opposite position from Dave the mainstream. That's their Orthodoxy and it clouds lots of their posts.
You've just described yourself. In RSPL no less.
Are we there yet?

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39640
It's one thing to be a retard if you can't help it. It's quite another thing to be a retard and think that you're smart.
Does the phrase "militantly ignorant narcissistic DK poster person" ring a bell?
Except, you're excuse is not that you're a retard, not naturally anyway, it's more the MINDKaPPing described above.
Are we there yet?

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39641
What astounds me is that Dave has been there. On the ground. Seen rainforest in all its splendour. And yet, here we are.

I can only guess he has a sort of self-inflicted blindness when it comes to plants, be they daisies or vanilla orchids or lambkill.

I wonder how many of those edge colonising plants are things like dumb cane or bead vine or castor plant or whatever plant it is that poison dart frogs ingest their poison from.
Probably most of them. And all my goats and sheep will probably die and the ones that don't will yield poison milk and the Wai Wai people will drink it and die no doubt.

Lol
Nothing quite so dramatic,
Just the milk will contain an ingredient that causes impotence and when the Wai Wai find out, your ass will be grass. In the most HMGest way possible.
Are we there yet?

  • Faid
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39642
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.
"fact"?
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39643
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?

Looks like you found your answer:

Quote
A common event in the tropical rainforest is the fall of an emergent tree, usually during a tropical thunderstorm. In fact, it is estimated that tree turnover rates in some rainforests are every 80-135 years. When one of these giants--laden with lianas connected to neighboring trees--falls, it takes out a sizeable portion of the canopy. This hole in the canopy is known as a "light gap" because direct sunlight reaches the floor in contrast to the usual 1-5 percent under full canopy conditions. The opening of a light gap brings many changes to the section of rainforest.

The light gap is rapidly colonized by the same pioneer species that colonize clearings including trees like cecropia, balsa, macaranga, musanga, and bamboo, and shrubby plants like gingers, bananas, nightshades, climbing lianas, and rattan palms. These species are well-adapted for rapid growth, but not for long-term existence in the forest. Their often white wood and leaves with poor chemical protection are subject to infection and infestation by insects. Generally, these pioneers flower rapidly and produce numerous fruits, but are soon overtaken by the hardier, better adapted hardwood trees which fill in the gap in the canopy. Many forest tree species are dependent on light gaps to complete their life cycle.

As a result of the increased light and abundance of fruits produced by gap colonists, light gaps are areas of increased animal activity. Carnivorous animals follow the herbivorous animals that are attracted to the fruiting plants.

I don't see anything about leaching :dunno:
"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)

  • Faid
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39644
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.
You know, now that I read this again, it's not as wrong as your previous assertions. I think that you have (quietly) aknowledged that it's soil concentration that determines nutrient uptake, and that leeching occurs- It's just that there's not much time for leeching to happen when microorganisms close to the roots release nutrients. Am I right about that?
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • Faid
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39645
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.
:rofl:

"I would totally kick your ass! Make you cry like a little baby! You're lucky my mom is coming to pick me up"
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • Faid
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39646
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%.
In fact, many types of trees take measures to increase that probability, by attracting microroganisms back into the nutrient depleted zone close to their roots. I wonder why they would need to do that.
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • Faid
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39647
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.
Mother of All Non-Sequiturs.
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • Faid
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39648
But alas, the fertilizer salesmen with their armies of fake scientists are a powerful force indeed.
You mean like the USDA ?
Damn that fertilizer establishment with their fake scientist armies., always plotting, scheming, finding sinister ways to preserve pristine rainforests!
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • Faid
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39649
Here.
I'll click it for you:
Quote
Soil Food Web

By Elaine R. Ingham


:pwned:


Wonderful. I'm glad that they are taking notice of her work.
"taking notice"?
She wrote their "soil primer" 20 years ago.

So you want to maybe rethink that idiotic "armies of fake scientists"  slogan?
No. It's still quite appropriate. Most farming in the USA is still the type of farming that uses chemical fertilizers and thus destroys soil life.
Except your narrative of mainstream scientists working for them goes down the drain.

Enjoy your crow, hawkins.
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.