Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TalkRational: Stop posting

Topic: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World) (Read 210387 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39700
Big buttons.
Dave, it would help if you had the rudiments of knowledge about the ecology of the places you're proposing to apply things into. Because if you push the same button in one biome there's no indication that it will have the same effects in another.

What happened to rabbits when they were introduced into the UK Dave?

What happened to the same rabbits when they were introduced into Australia?

Same "big button" Dave, right? So why does nobody care about the former but the latter is considered a disaster?
It is a constant source of amazement and Fascination to me to watch grown men with Advanced Science degrees literally unable to rub two neurons together enough to realize that moving some goats and sheep from Dadanawa Ranch to Southern Guyana is in an entirely different category than bringing rabbits from overseas to Australia. Does this moron not realize that there already are herbivores of similar size and Habit in the southern Guyanese rainforest already? Like deer for example? Does he not realize that there are plenty of jungle predators to keep them under control if they were to go feral?

WTF?
Dadanawa Ranch isn't in the rainforest you clueless fuck. Its in the Rupununi Savannah.

WTF indeed Dave.

Which herbivores of similar size and habit are in the Guyanese rainforest on this list Dave?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mammals_of_Guyana
Deer.
Dave, deer (and there's only two relevant species of Brocket Deer in question) have very different ecologies to goats. They eat different foods, and will have different effects on the ecosystem.

Your overconfidence that there will be no problem will be disastrous Dave.
Why do I bother?

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39701

At the risk of watching Borealis' head explode yet again, my answer is...

"Don't know don't care"

Because nature Knows Best. The sheep and goats will select what they want to eat from what is there.

Just like they do here in Missouri.

Your 'don't know, don't care' attitude is the main reason you get so much aggro from the rest of us. You're the poster child for the havoc humans cause in the environment.

What if 'nature's knowing best' is that goats have no business there and should starve or sicken and die?

Lol you don't let your animals select what they want to eat in Missouri! You only let them eat what YOU decide they should eat.
LOL yeah I'm the poster child for environmental havoc. I've killed all the grass and the trees and wildlife at my place ... like that elm tree I pruned, for instance. Oh wait.

I guess if we really want to put the goats in control of their own lives, we should just eliminate fences all together and let them roam free and hope they come back at dinner time to let us milk them! Free choice, baby!

  • borealis
  • Administrator
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39702

At the risk of watching Borealis' head explode yet again, my answer is...

"Don't know don't care"

Because nature Knows Best. The sheep and goats will select what they want to eat from what is there.

Just like they do here in Missouri.

Your 'don't know, don't care' attitude is the main reason you get so much aggro from the rest of us. You're the poster child for the havoc humans cause in the environment.

What if 'nature's knowing best' is that goats have no business there and should starve or sicken and die?

Lol you don't let your animals select what they want to eat in Missouri! You only let them eat what YOU decide they should eat.
LOL yeah I'm the poster child for environmental havoc. I've killed all the grass and the trees and wildlife at my place ... like that elm tree I pruned, for instance. Oh wait.

I guess if we really want to put the goats in control of their own lives, we should just eliminate fences all together and let them roam free and hope they come back at dinner time to let us milk them! Free choice, baby!

You're so ridiculous. There are actual points between 'roam free' and 'mobile cage'. And points between 'select own forage' and 'hand-fed only certain plants.

And you've been told about goats that literally just hang out on large properties and don't leave because they are happy where they are. And goats that live in huge fenced areas with access to trees, shrubs, herbs etc. And shown that goats don't care to cross water, for example.

Don't crow too soon about your trees.

And if they do thrive, it's just as likely that your neighbours have acted as vaccinators for your trees by taking better care of their own.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39703
Dave, when a single tree falls it doesn't clear a saw the 300ft wide and a mile long.  You're not proposing to clear a little false here and there at the kind of rate you'd expect to be happening in the forest anyway. You wanted to "thin the canopy by 50%". All those animals attracted to light gaps by the abundance of food? Normally they live in the canopy. Remove half of it and you destroy their habitat.
Is opening up some "light gaps" comparable to those described in the article the same as thinning the entire rainforest canopy to 50%?  No I don't think so.

Did I say it was? No, no I did not. I'm pointing out to you that natural breaks in the canopy are not what you are proposing to create. They, and the huge amounts of leaching that you will open the soil up to, are not comparable to a gap in the canopy that lasts a few years at most, is rapidly colonised by shrubs and (comparatively) low growing trees that will still be supplying the thin topsoil with nutrients, and taking those nutrients up almost as fast as they are applied. The bulk of the biomass is still in the plants, not the soil. It still doesn't get a chance to build up, because those plants, being rainforest plants, are adapted to soils with very few nutrients and take everything up as fast as they can. And yes, there will be increased leaching in that little area, because there will be more rainfall reaching the forest floor in large bursts, rather than gradually as a result of being delayed by the canopy and all the plants living up there.

Quote
I stopped talking about the 50% thing when I saw too many heads exploding.  We can talk about that again later once you've gotten your heads around "light gaps."

Dave, we understand light gaps as being a standard part of rainforest ecology. They form, there;s a brief flurry of activity around them, and then they close up again. More importantly they're small and widely spaced. Totally unlike your proposals.

Dave, once you've gotten your head around basic rainforest ecology maybe you can start thinking about exactly what effects your idiotic and utterly destructive policy will have on animals and plants that depend on the canopy and near continuous rainforest cover have. How do you think sloths will be able to get to their communal middens with 330ft gaps between trees? Did you even know sloths have communal middens?
You're full of shit.  I'm tired of arguing with idiots.  Maybe I'll be in the mood another day.  Nothing will be destroyed.  I'm simply going to open up some "light gaps" and feed sheep and goats therein.  The end.
Light gaps are where a tree falls. You are going to feed sheep and goats in light gaps? It's fortunate that you actually aren't going to do this.
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 #39704
Lol

Brains on Darwin.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39705
Lol

Moronic content-free slogans.
"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 #39706
That's okay that you don't get it. I will be demonstrating the concept with my own piece of land. If it goes well and other land owners are interested in helping me solve this problem, then I would probably form some sort of a land trust which operates on these principles.
So hand over all but three acres of your land to people who can make good use of it. Maybe even grow all or almost all their food.
you're not very good at math are you? How many people are in my family right now? I think you know the answer. It's 3. Do you know what 8 Acres divided by 3 is?
Six biological children, one adopted child, Mother, Father one ex wife, and himself.  Even counting the females as half a person, and not counting the wife as family, how does the math work here? 
Was there a winnowing of the brood? 
What was the selection criteria? 
Will there be another round? 
Will there be a prize for the last family member?

ETA: could the females have been assessed a negative value?
Most of my kids have moved out, but they're still family.
  • Last Edit: May 20, 2018, 12:14:59 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.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39707
Dave, when a single tree falls it doesn't clear a saw the 300ft wide and a mile long.  You're not proposing to clear a little false here and there at the kind of rate you'd expect to be happening in the forest anyway. You wanted to "thin the canopy by 50%". All those animals attracted to light gaps by the abundance of food? Normally they live in the canopy. Remove half of it and you destroy their habitat.
Is opening up some "light gaps" comparable to those described in the article the same as thinning the entire rainforest canopy to 50%?  No I don't think so.

Did I say it was? No, no I did not. I'm pointing out to you that natural breaks in the canopy are not what you are proposing to create. They, and the huge amounts of leaching that you will open the soil up to, are not comparable to a gap in the canopy that lasts a few years at most, is rapidly colonised by shrubs and (comparatively) low growing trees that will still be supplying the thin topsoil with nutrients, and taking those nutrients up almost as fast as they are applied. The bulk of the biomass is still in the plants, not the soil. It still doesn't get a chance to build up, because those plants, being rainforest plants, are adapted to soils with very few nutrients and take everything up as fast as they can. And yes, there will be increased leaching in that little area, because there will be more rainfall reaching the forest floor in large bursts, rather than gradually as a result of being delayed by the canopy and all the plants living up there.

Quote
I stopped talking about the 50% thing when I saw too many heads exploding.  We can talk about that again later once you've gotten your heads around "light gaps."

Dave, we understand light gaps as being a standard part of rainforest ecology. They form, there;s a brief flurry of activity around them, and then they close up again. More importantly they're small and widely spaced. Totally unlike your proposals.

Dave, once you've gotten your head around basic rainforest ecology maybe you can start thinking about exactly what effects your idiotic and utterly destructive policy will have on animals and plants that depend on the canopy and near continuous rainforest cover have. How do you think sloths will be able to get to their communal middens with 330ft gaps between trees? Did you even know sloths have communal middens?
You're full of shit.  I'm tired of arguing with idiots.  Maybe I'll be in the mood another day.  Nothing will be destroyed.  I'm simply going to open up some "light gaps" and feed sheep and goats therein.  The end.
Light gaps are where a tree falls. You are going to feed sheep and goats in light gaps? It's fortunate that you actually aren't going to do this.
Light gaps inform us what will happen when we create small clearings in rainforest. And as I expected, good things happen in terms of forage growth which is undoubtedly suitable for sheep and goats, judging by the reported increase in these areas in herbivore and predator population.

  • JonF
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39708
Dave, when a single tree falls it doesn't clear a saw the 300ft wide and a mile long.  You're not proposing to clear a little false here and there at the kind of rate you'd expect to be happening in the forest anyway. You wanted to "thin the canopy by 50%". All those animals attracted to light gaps by the abundance of food? Normally they live in the canopy. Remove half of it and you destroy their habitat.
Is opening up some "light gaps" comparable to those described in the article the same as thinning the entire rainforest canopy to 50%?  No I don't think so.

Did I say it was? No, no I did not. I'm pointing out to you that natural breaks in the canopy are not what you are proposing to create. They, and the huge amounts of leaching that you will open the soil up to, are not comparable to a gap in the canopy that lasts a few years at most, is rapidly colonised by shrubs and (comparatively) low growing trees that will still be supplying the thin topsoil with nutrients, and taking those nutrients up almost as fast as they are applied. The bulk of the biomass is still in the plants, not the soil. It still doesn't get a chance to build up, because those plants, being rainforest plants, are adapted to soils with very few nutrients and take everything up as fast as they can. And yes, there will be increased leaching in that little area, because there will be more rainfall reaching the forest floor in large bursts, rather than gradually as a result of being delayed by the canopy and all the plants living up there.

Quote
I stopped talking about the 50% thing when I saw too many heads exploding.  We can talk about that again later once you've gotten your heads around "light gaps."

Dave, we understand light gaps as being a standard part of rainforest ecology. They form, there;s a brief flurry of activity around them, and then they close up again. More importantly they're small and widely spaced. Totally unlike your proposals.

Dave, once you've gotten your head around basic rainforest ecology maybe you can start thinking about exactly what effects your idiotic and utterly destructive policy will have on animals and plants that depend on the canopy and near continuous rainforest cover have. How do you think sloths will be able to get to their communal middens with 330ft gaps between trees? Did you even know sloths have communal middens?
You're full of shit.  I'm tired of arguing with idiots.  Maybe I'll be in the mood another day.  Nothing will be destroyed.  I'm simply going to open up some "light gaps" and feed sheep and goats therein.  The end.
Light gaps are where a tree falls. You are going to feed sheep and goats in light gaps? It's fortunate that you actually aren't going to do this.
Light gaps inform us what will happen when we create small clearings in rainforest. And as I expected, good things happen in terms of forage growth which is undoubtedly suitable for sheep and goats, judging by the reported increase in these areas in herbivore and predator population.
"Small clearings" maybe capable of sustaining one goat or sheep. Significantly larger clearings are different. You never get this scaling thing.

You are proposing major changes that will destroy what was there and negatively affect ecosystems for miles around. Edge effect. Another critical concept you can't understand or learn.
"I would never consider my evaluation of his work to be fair minded unless I had actually read his own words." - Dave Hawkins

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39709
Jon quit talking out of your ass. If you make an authoritative statement like that give me a citation of somebody who has knowledge based on their own experience. It's fine that you don't have your own experience, but at least have the decency to refer to someone else's work to support your authoritative statements.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39710
It's a real simple concept and I practice what I preach. For example, I really didn't know too much about what happens in clearings in the rainforest until I found that mongabay article. Now, thanks to that article, I know more and more importantly I know the right terms to search for to try to find more articles on the topic. Like "light gap." I had never encountered that term before, but now that I have it will help me in my literature searches. You guys should know this basic stuff as much science training as you have had. Come on. It's boring to just watch you talk out of your ass all day long.

  • Fenrir
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39711
Big buttons.
Dave, it would help if you had the rudiments of knowledge about the ecology of the places you're proposing to apply things into. Because if you push the same button in one biome there's no indication that it will have the same effects in another.

What happened to rabbits when they were introduced into the UK Dave?

What happened to the same rabbits when they were introduced into Australia?

Same "big button" Dave, right? So why does nobody care about the former but the latter is considered a disaster?
It is a constant source of amazement and Fascination to me to watch grown men with Advanced Science degrees literally unable to rub two neurons together enough to realize that moving some goats and sheep from Dadanawa Ranch to Southern Guyana is in an entirely different category than bringing rabbits from overseas to Australia. Does this moron not realize that there already are herbivores of similar size and Habit in the southern Guyanese rainforest already? Like deer for example? Does he not realize that there are plenty of jungle predators to keep them under control if they were to go feral?

WTF?

WTF?

Animals only go feral if there are no other animals of similar size and habit present?

What's this then?

It's what plants crave.

  • Zombies!
  • These violent delights have violent ends.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39712
Russian hogs? There's a ban on those bastards.  They go feral at the drop of a hat, and destroy land as quick as lightning.
http://michiganradio.org/post/battle-over-michigans-new-swine-rules-goes-hog-wild
Quote
It's estimated that as many as 3,000 wild pigs are on the loose in Michigan. Nationwide, they cause more than $1.8 billion in damage to farms each year. So recently, the state's Department of Natural Resources put Russian boar on the state's invasive species list.

  • Last Edit: May 20, 2018, 02:39:02 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.

  • RickB
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39713
Is it your contention, Hawkins, that any tree can be coppiced?
Not saying that but I suspect most can be.
So I guess you'll want to rethink your knee-jerk reaction here:

No
[/quote]


Except that the question that you were asked to honestly respond to was:
Is it your contention, Hawkins, that any tree can be coppiced?
Not saying that but I suspect most can be.
So I guess you'll want to rethink your knee-jerk reaction here:
...
Many rainforest trees cannot be coppiced.
You are talking out your ass. Come on man. You can do better than that.

So you are asserting that all rain-forest trees can be coppiced?


Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39714
Geez no. Any animal can go feral at any time. But there would be almost zero negative effect if similar animals already existed in that area.

No I'm sure that all trees do not coppice well. But I'm sure there are many rainforest species that do.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39715
Jon quit talking out of your ass. If you make an authoritative statement like that give me a citation of somebody who has knowledge based on their own experience. It's fine that you don't have your own experience, but at least have the decency to refer to someone else's work to support your authoritative statements.
:ironicat:    

bookmarked
"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 #39716
Geez no. Any animal can go feral at any time. But there would be almost zero negative effect if similar animals already existed in that area.

No I'm sure that all trees do not coppice well. But I'm sure there are many rainforest species that do.
Like Snake heads in rivers?
Because NO.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snakehead_(fish)

Quote
The snakeheads are members of the freshwater perciform fish family Channidae, native to parts of Africa and Asia. These elongated, predatory fish are distinguished by their long dorsal fins, large mouths, and shiny teeth. They breathe air with gills, which allows them to migrate short distances over land. They have suprabranchial organs developing when they grow older,[2] which is a primitive form of a labyrinth organ. The two extant genera are Channa in Asia and Parachanna in Africa, consisting of about 40 species.

They are valuable as a food source and have become notorious as an intentionally released invasive species.
Quote
Ecological concerns

Snakehead murrel, Channa striata, Java, Indonesia
Snakeheads can become invasive species and cause ecological damage because in many areas to which they are not native the absence of natural enemies gives them apex predator status. Not only can they breathe air, but they can also survive on land for up to four days, provided they are wet, and are known to migrate up to 400 metres (1/4 mile) on wet land to other bodies of water by wriggling with their body and fins. National Geographic has referred to snakeheads as "Fishzilla"[6] and the National Geographic Channel reported the "northern snakehead reaches sexual maturity by age two or three. Each spawning-age female can release up to 15,000 eggs at once. Snakeheads can mate as often as five times a year. This means in just two years, a single female can release up to 150,000 eggs."[7]
"Since 2002, it has been illegal to possess a live snakehead in many US states, where they are considered a destructive invasive species."[8] Virginia has criminalized the "introduc[tion]" of snakeheads into the state without specific authorization, although the relevant statute does not explain whether mere importation is sufficient to constitute "introduc[tion] into the Commonwealth" or whether instead release into the environment is required.[9]
Shame Dave can't see this.




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 #39717
Jon quit talking out of your ass. If you make an authoritative statement like that give me a citation of somebody who has knowledge based on their own experience. It's fine that you don't have your own experience, but at least have the decency to refer to someone else's work to support your authoritative statements.
Dave quit talking out of your ass. If you make an authoritative statements as you have give me a citation of somebody who has knowledge based on their own experience. It's fine that you don't have your own experience, but at least have the decency to refer to someone else's work to support your authoritative statements.

As for my statements your avoidance is pathetic. You could argue whether a light gap as discussed in that article could support one or two sheep or goats, but the point is that the light gap caused by a tree fall will be far smaller than your 300 feet by one mile swath.

The fact that you don't understand scaling is long-established. Ten times larger than one tree fall is going to be significantly different. 100 times larger will be vastly different. When you extrapolate results you need to justify the extrapolation. You don't.

I can't prove you don't know what "edge effect", but it's an educated guess based on the fact it's been mentioned as an important factor and you have ignored it. But you can easily prove me wrong. Define "edge effect" in your own words and discuss how it relates to your plan.

Betcha can't.
  • Last Edit: May 20, 2018, 02:45:01 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

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39718

At the risk of watching Borealis' head explode yet again, my answer is...

"Don't know don't care"

Because nature Knows Best. The sheep and goats will select what they want to eat from what is there.

Just like they do here in Missouri.

Your 'don't know, don't care' attitude is the main reason you get so much aggro from the rest of us. You're the poster child for the havoc humans cause in the environment.

What if 'nature's knowing best' is that goats have no business there and should starve or sicken and die?

Lol you don't let your animals select what they want to eat in Missouri! You only let them eat what YOU decide they should eat.
LOL yeah I'm the poster child for environmental havoc. I've killed all the grass and the trees and wildlife at my place ... like that elm tree I pruned, for instance. Oh wait.

I guess if we really want to put the goats in control of their own lives, we should just eliminate fences all together and let them roam free and hope they come back at dinner time to let us milk them! Free choice, baby!
For Bluffy, there's nothing other than All < Some > None.
Are we there yet?

  • RickB
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39719
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:


How nice that you dishonestly failed to include the link, nice going!!

Mongabay link

Yup, nothing about leaching in that article.  So, leaching does not occur.
Not a single word about microbes either, hmmm.
Hmmm, nothing about nitrogen in that article either.  Guess nitrogen doesn't exist either.
Damn, there isn't even anything about air in that article.  Am I to believe that air doesn't exist???
And nothing about roots!!!  So we have to conclude that Mongabay trees exist in a microbe free environment, that also lacks nitrogen or even air.  And that the trees do not have roots.

Lots of good Dave info in that article!!


  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39720
Geez no. Any animal can go feral at any time. But there would be almost zero negative effect if similar animals already existed in that area.

No I'm sure that all trees do not coppice well. But I'm sure there are many rainforest species that do.
From just an hour before.
Jon quit talking out of your ass. If you make an authoritative statement like that give me a citation of somebody who has knowledge based on their own experience. It's fine that you don't have your own experience, but at least have the decency to refer to someone else's work to support your authoritative statements.
Maybe the above should be:
I, Bluffy, should quit talking out of my ass. If I make authoritative statements like above, then I should give the readers a citation of somebody who has knowledge based on their own experience. It's fine that I don't have my own relevant experience, nor education, nor training, but at least I should have the decency to refer to someone else's work to support my authoritative statements, but I don't. And I'm not going to. Ever. Except as a quote-mine.
Are we there yet?

  • RickB
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39721
Dave, when a single tree falls it doesn't clear a saw the 300ft wide and a mile long.  You're not proposing to clear a little false here and there at the kind of rate you'd expect to be happening in the forest anyway. You wanted to "thin the canopy by 50%". All those animals attracted to light gaps by the abundance of food? Normally they live in the canopy. Remove half of it and you destroy their habitat.
Is opening up some "light gaps" comparable to those described in the article the same as thinning the entire rainforest canopy to 50%?  No I don't think so.  I stopped talking about the 50% thing when I saw too many heads exploding.  We can talk about that again later once you've gotten your heads around "light gaps."


Well there is a bit of difference between 40 acre light gaps and 400 m2 light gaps. 

And when you expand that to 20,000 400 m2 there might be some impact, even on 1 million acres.


  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39722
It's a real simple concept and I practice what I preach.
:rofl:
:rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:



:no:


Quote
For example, I really didn't know too much about what happens in clearings in the rainforest until I found that mongabay article.
What do you want to bet the mongabay guy isn't a "brain on Darwin?"
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • RickB
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39723
Dave, when a single tree falls it doesn't clear a saw the 300ft wide and a mile long.  You're not proposing to clear a little false here and there at the kind of rate you'd expect to be happening in the forest anyway. You wanted to "thin the canopy by 50%". All those animals attracted to light gaps by the abundance of food? Normally they live in the canopy. Remove half of it and you destroy their habitat.
Is opening up some "light gaps" comparable to those described in the article the same as thinning the entire rainforest canopy to 50%?  No I don't think so.

Did I say it was? No, no I did not. I'm pointing out to you that natural breaks in the canopy are not what you are proposing to create. They, and the huge amounts of leaching that you will open the soil up to, are not comparable to a gap in the canopy that lasts a few years at most, is rapidly colonised by shrubs and (comparatively) low growing trees that will still be supplying the thin topsoil with nutrients, and taking those nutrients up almost as fast as they are applied. The bulk of the biomass is still in the plants, not the soil. It still doesn't get a chance to build up, because those plants, being rainforest plants, are adapted to soils with very few nutrients and take everything up as fast as they can. And yes, there will be increased leaching in that little area, because there will be more rainfall reaching the forest floor in large bursts, rather than gradually as a result of being delayed by the canopy and all the plants living up there.

Quote
I stopped talking about the 50% thing when I saw too many heads exploding.  We can talk about that again later once you've gotten your heads around "light gaps."

Dave, we understand light gaps as being a standard part of rainforest ecology. They form, there;s a brief flurry of activity around them, and then they close up again. More importantly they're small and widely spaced. Totally unlike your proposals.

Dave, once you've gotten your head around basic rainforest ecology maybe you can start thinking about exactly what effects your idiotic and utterly destructive policy will have on animals and plants that depend on the canopy and near continuous rainforest cover have. How do you think sloths will be able to get to their communal middens with 330ft gaps between trees? Did you even know sloths have communal middens?
You're full of shit.  I'm tired of arguing with idiots.  Maybe I'll be in the mood another day.  Nothing will be destroyed.  I'm simply going to open up some "light gaps" and feed sheep and goats therein.  The end.
Fortunately, other posters aren't tired of arguing with
you, so the thread goes on.

What, specifically, will grow in your gaps that can feed sheep and goats?
At the risk of watching Borealis' head explode yet again, my answer is...

"Don't know don't care"

Because nature Knows Best. The sheep and goats will select what they want to eat from what is there.

Just like they do here in Missouri.


HAHAHA, I just want to be worshiped by the Wai Wai like my DAD!!!


  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39724
Jon quit talking out of your ass. If you make an authoritative statement like that give me a citation of somebody who has knowledge based on their own experience. It's fine that you don't have your own experience, but at least have the decency to refer to someone else's work to support your authoritative statements.
Dave quit talking out of your ass. If you make an authoritative statements as you have give me a citation of somebody who has knowledge based on their own experience. It's fine that you don't have your own experience, but at least have the decency to refer to someone else's work to support your authoritative statements.

As for my statements your avoidance is pathetic. You could argue whether a light gap as discussed in that article could support one or two sheep or goats, but the point is that the light gap caused by a tree fall will be far smaller than your 300 feet by one mile swath.

The fact that you don't understand scaling is long-established. Ten times larger than one tree fall is going to be significantly different. 100 times larger will be vastly different. When you extrapolate results you need to justify the extrapolation. You don't.

I can't prove you don't know what "edge effect", but it's an educated guess based on the fact it's been mentioned as an important factor and you have ignored it. But you can easily prove me wrong. Define "edge effect" in your own words and discuss how it relates to your plan.

Betcha can't.

One thing Bluffy apparently ignores is the edge effect re area of light gap. In a natural tree fall, there's probably a hole left in the canopy that's perhaps 60' to 100' in diameter. That's got and area of between 2800sf and 8500sf and a circumference of between 190' and 310' for a ratio of area to circumference of between about 15 and 27. In just that range, one can see the power of the 3/2 rule. Extend that ratio to a 300' wide by 5280' long strip, it's 1,584,000sf divided by 11,160' = a bit over 140.  There's a lot more edge for the small parcel than the larger parcels. And the trend is progressive. The small parcel has a lot of influence from it's edges. The large parcel has a lot less and it's a lot farther from the edge to the center. The reason small light gaps regenerate quickly is the surrounding edge contributes greatly, while with the large parcels, there's way more area per foot of edge and way more of that area much farther from the edge.
Are we there yet?