Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational: Athletic Choreographed Fantasy Display

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - borealis

1
Also, do you agree with your 'honest' rw sources that the grieving teenagers in Florida are all 'crisis actors' funded by Soros? That maybe the deaths at the high school were all 'staged'? IOW, how far down this rabbit hole have you let yourself fall?
3
The Soap Opera / Re: Who deleted the topic?
I don't know who merged it. Typically we'd state it was merged. I didn't do it, raven didn't merge it, and I don't see any other mods online right now.

But merging socrates threads has been done before, because he often starts threads on the same topic in Science after the original has been moved.
4
The Soap Opera / Re: Who deleted the topic?
Really? There are that many topics getting vanished these days? 

AFAIK, NO topics have been or are being deleted. There is a limited number of people who are authorised to delete topics, and I can't think of any of us who would lightly do that. So, before you start slinging accusations:

What was the topic title and where was it?
5
A breakdown of the Fox News coverage over the weekend:

https://www.vox.com/2018/2/19/17027456/fox-news-mueller-indictment-trump

Not that you will read it, Dave, but contrast this with your treefort bullshit to see what a substantive media analysis looks like.

Wait, is the whole point of this exercise in analysis, to say that Fox News has a conservative bias?
Well Holy Shit, Is there anyone alive who doesn't already know that?
And, is there anybody alive who does not know that CNN and MSNBC have a liberal bias?
If you are seeking news without bias, the best you can do is sample all three (at least) networks and try to average it all out.
That's what I try to do and I do recognize there are two sides to every story, especially when both sides have their own slant.



The issue is that Dave hardly even looks at Fox - he likes insane blogs like Conservative Treehouse, which don't even attempt to adhere to facts, but push wild conspiracy theories and outright bullshit.
7
And here's Donnie jr. touting another rw site bashing David Hogg, another one of the vocal students, because his dad is retired FBI. Insinuating that he isn't a student, or is being coached by the FBI. Lying about his dad's status by saying he is still working at Miami FBI, when he is a retired person.

https://www.mediaite.com/online/don-jr-promotes-article-from-conspiracy-site-suggesting-trump-hating-school-shooting-survivor-is-fbi-plant/

9
Gateway Pundit, free republic, and other rw sites have mounted a smear campaign against the more vocal kids who survived the Florida school shooting, calling them 'shills', saying they are coached, claiming they 'party like rock stars' etc.

There is no evidence any of these kids do any of this. They are just a group of earnest teenagers recovering from a terrible trauma.

https://thinkprogress.org/the-new-smear-campaign-against-students-who-survived-the-parkland-massacre-b71c1e1d722c/
10

It's kinda ridiculous trying to discuss this stuff with people - like Testy for example - who don't even have their heads around these basics, yet they think they know more than me about pretty much everything and they show up several times a day blah blah blah-ing out their asses while saying "Dave is and idiot, Dave is an idiot."
Dave, think of those as exclamation points when you surprise me with your unique kind of brilliance. But more to the point, I understand what you believe about hmg. I really do. As you say, it is incredibly simple. But I also understand a little bit about both ecology and dynamic systems and my exclamation points refer to points where you assume that a particular process actually doesn't depend on its local conditions.

New York grass crop yields have nothing to do with Guyana grass crop yields. Guyana grass crop yields will have to do with Guyana.

Also, I grew up in a temperate rain forest. While I wouldn't presume that the nature of the soils or grasses in Washington state will reflect much about the nature of soils or grasses in Guyana, I do know that hooves don't exactly compact grass in that sort of environment so much as churn the top 8 or so inches of soil.

Maybe Guyana soil resists such churning. I dunno. But grazing doesn't work the same with 120 inches of rain a year as it does with 40.

The carrying capacity of a field is determined more by how long the roots can resist churning into mud than by how much grass there is to eat.

Maybe Guyana is different in that. Dunno. It is assuredly different in some ways that will affect the system states created by applying the  bunch move rest formula.
Of course Guyana is different but not in the way that you imagine. It's different in that it has a rainy season and a dry season and no Winters and the soils are different and so on. But it has perennial grasses and cattle ranching is done in Guyana and in Northern Brazil and I'm sure they use different breeds than they use here and they may use some different practices to account for softer soils or whatever I'm not sure.  But the basic principles are the same and the New York lady is encouraging to me simply because that's the highest reported Pasture productivity that I've ever heard of in North America and it encourages me that grass productivity in Guyana could probably also be massively increased over the conventional numbers such as on a place like Dadanawa Ranch for example.

You never heard of Dadanawa ranch until I mentioned it. You probably have no idea what their 'numbers' are, nor what their environment/soil/ecosystem is really like. Nor what their focus is.
Bahahahaha

This confirms your status as an idiot More than most other things you said.

Tell me about it, then.
11

It's kinda ridiculous trying to discuss this stuff with people - like Testy for example - who don't even have their heads around these basics, yet they think they know more than me about pretty much everything and they show up several times a day blah blah blah-ing out their asses while saying "Dave is and idiot, Dave is an idiot."
Dave, think of those as exclamation points when you surprise me with your unique kind of brilliance. But more to the point, I understand what you believe about hmg. I really do. As you say, it is incredibly simple. But I also understand a little bit about both ecology and dynamic systems and my exclamation points refer to points where you assume that a particular process actually doesn't depend on its local conditions.

New York grass crop yields have nothing to do with Guyana grass crop yields. Guyana grass crop yields will have to do with Guyana.

Also, I grew up in a temperate rain forest. While I wouldn't presume that the nature of the soils or grasses in Washington state will reflect much about the nature of soils or grasses in Guyana, I do know that hooves don't exactly compact grass in that sort of environment so much as churn the top 8 or so inches of soil.

Maybe Guyana soil resists such churning. I dunno. But grazing doesn't work the same with 120 inches of rain a year as it does with 40.

The carrying capacity of a field is determined more by how long the roots can resist churning into mud than by how much grass there is to eat.

Maybe Guyana is different in that. Dunno. It is assuredly different in some ways that will affect the system states created by applying the  bunch move rest formula.
Of course Guyana is different but not in the way that you imagine. It's different in that it has a rainy season and a dry season and no Winters and the soils are different and so on. But it has perennial grasses and cattle ranching is done in Guyana and in Northern Brazil and I'm sure they use different breeds than they use here and they may use some different practices to account for softer soils or whatever I'm not sure.  But the basic principles are the same and the New York lady is encouraging to me simply because that's the highest reported Pasture productivity that I've ever heard of in North America and it encourages me that grass productivity in Guyana could probably also be massively increased over the conventional numbers such as on a place like Dadanawa Ranch for example.

You never heard of Dadanawa ranch until I mentioned it. You probably have no idea what their 'numbers' are, nor what their environment/soil/ecosystem is really like. Nor what their focus is.
13
You people are lazy.  Get up early like I do and READ.

Bullshit Dave. You haven't answered my question. You've answered what happens to animals and other ecosystems under a hypothetical small-scale project, but you refuse to answer what happens in your 'large scale, save the planet, type plan'.
Which is the question I want you to answer.

I'm thinking that your large scale plan requires the wholesale destruction of any ecosystems not compatible with your 'oak savannah' style farm. Refute me.
Dunno.  But let's to get to first base first, ok?


"Getting to first base" implies eventually getting to second, third, and home, Dave.

Suppose you actually do go to Guyana and clear your forty acres. Have you actually thought about things like what perennial grasses would grow there? Do you know which soil profile is represented in the area?

For example:

Quote
This book reports the results of the land resources inventory carried out during 1992-1993 in the Mabura-Kurupukari area of Central Guyana, the site of the Tropenbos-Guyana Programme. The entire area lies within a logging concession, and this survey was designed to provide baseline data for the research programme carried out at the site, and as an important basis of sound land-use planning. The study consists of a detailed analysis of geology, geomorphology and, most importantly, soils of this 220,000 ha area. The physical, chemical and mineralogical properties of the soils are described, and one chapter addresses soil genesis and soil-landform relationships. The results of the soil inventory are visualised on a map (scale 1:100,000), with 26 mapping units. The map appears as an annex. The soils of the area have been divided into two main groups: - Shallow to deep, well drained, stony and gravely, loamy to clay-like soils on hills and dissected erosional plains, and - Deep, excessively drained white sand soils and deep, well drained brown loamy to clay-like soils dominating the dissected sedimentary plains (White Sands Plateau). An important finding of the study is that the soils in the area are, in general, strongly acid, with remarkably low levels of nutrient reserves. Most soils have high levels of aluminium saturation, which may be a problem for plant growth. These factors make these soils very sensitive to injudicious management.

http://www.tropenbos.org/publications/soils+of+the+rain+forest+in+central+Guyana

And here is a list of grasses deemed suitable for coastal Guyana. I'm sure Guyanan scientists have investigated similarly for the area/soil type you're talking about. I'm linking it because I wonder if you recognise most of these grasses, as some of them may also suit the soil you will use..

Palisade/Signal grass, Tanner grass, Star grass, UF717, Antelope grass, Elephant grass, Setaria/Monkey Tail grass

http://www.cardi.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2015/05/Grasses-for-improved-pasture-on-coastal-clay-soils-of-Guyana.pdf
14
Quote
Why wouldn't you use a 40 acre plot that they've already cut and abandoned?
Sure if fertility is enough to establish grasses. 
Quote
And, if you cut 40 out of a million, probably not. But for sure they won't live on that 40 acres.
  True, but remember I'm not planning on clear cutting vast swaths like the conventional cattle ranchers are doing.  I'm suggesting small plots dotted like patchwork in the existing rainforest so I don't know why the wildlife would not still have plenty of habitat.
Quote
Also, you could stock how many cows on well managed 40 acres? 30? More?
I don't know.  But I did hear recently of a lady in Maine who has a large section of her pasture that produces 11 tons of dry matter per year.  That's freaking 22,000 lbs - enough for about 2 cows.  If I could achieve half of that forage production then 40 acres = 40 cows.  But I doubt I would run cows at all.  Or maybe just a few for some milk.  I am envisioning sheep and hogs for meat and chickens for eggs.
Quote
Are the wai wai lactose tolerant?
No idea, but I doubt it.  You guys have drunk some weird Koolaid on that issue.
Maine? Fucking MAINE? Goodamn you are an idiot.
Actually ... New York ... I had that wrong.  What have you got against "fucking Maine"?
It's not useful in comparing to Guyana.  You have now fully entered the poisonwood bible dad territory.
Sure it's useful. The sun shines in both places does it not? Grass grows in both places does it not? Cattle and sheep exist in both places do they not?  I don't care what part of the world you are talking about... 11 tons of dry matter per acre per year is freaking amazing forage growth. It's inspiring mainly.
Bluffy, your statements above indicate you believe there is no substantive difference in climate and/or soils between somewhere in New York and southern Guyana. Is that what you believe?



No, He believes he can HMG cow stomp poop and piss that poor low nutrient Guyanan soil into muscular high som nutrient-bursting soil that will cause pasture grasses to spring up 9 feet high every year. Climate's just a bonus.

Hope he knows how to HMG botflies.

15
Guyana does have cattle ranches. Maybe Dave could talk to these people:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dadanawa_Ranch

They run an ecotourism venture besides the ranch. People that have been there seem to like it.
16
Dave plain and simple hasn't gathered enough information regarding any kind of ecology to do other than make an unwitting fool of himself with his pronouncements.

He has no idea how small some biomes are, or about how they interact. He doesn't have a clue what might be important. Regarding the tropical rainforest, his notion of creating broad alleys or cutting the canopy by 50% is a real extinction booster. Countless creatures live in the canopy, and many only survive to eat and mate because there is a continuous canopy to travel and hunt through. Breaks in that canopy that can't be traversed or easily circled around can be species killers. There are plants, frogs, insects, lizards, etc. that only exist in small, very specific environments, so small that many have already been eliminated by deforestation. Dave's plan would cause more extinctions by destroying some of those small reservoirs.

He doesn't understand species interactions, either - that losing some insect or bird might interrupt a cycle that some plant or tree depends on for reproduction, or losing some ant species might eliminate a crucial food source.
17
BTW, I take it we're no longer talking about poisonous plants, or about why there's no reason to know or do specific things in HMG.

Oh well.
That whole stupid conversation could have been reduced to... Hey Dave, be careful how close you take your pen next to your Woods because there can be poisonous plants in there.
There can be bad plants in the middle of the field too.
What you were unable to glean from the conversation was -
How do you know what you don't need to learn or know?
That was the question. Not examples of things you don't think you need to know.
The purpose of the question is to find out HOW YOU DECIDE what you don't need to know or learn.
Answer the actual question and the conversation won't be stupid.
I have already explained that but people here are too stupid or too blinded to even read my answer. I have sat through several classes on holistic managed grazing and went through an entire six-month internship

<snip envious insults>
So that was all the info you will ever need. No need to go more in depth
Dave, are you familiar with tansy ragwort? Does it grow in your county?

Idk if he has it or not - I described it and pretty sure showed him a photo on old TR before he even got his goats. His cow likely won't eat it even if it's around, unless she's starving. It was a plague in some Cape Breton pastures, but the cows would chew the grass around it right to the soil before they'd take a bite of it. The danger was if it got into the hay too much. Local name for it was Stinking Willie.
18
Quote
Mother Nature without interference from mankind never destroys ecosystems

Ahahahahahaha what
did dave really write that?

Yes. :(

It's all those posts he ignores, he misses really large pieces of information.

The bigger question is how did he get this old without knowing a good deal of this stuff?
20
Faid when I say that nature Knows Best I am specifically saying that "Nature knows best How to not destroy ecosystems and also how to enhance them" which to me means greater biodiversity, higher numbers of life forms, Etc

Related to this observation is the secondary observation that mankind is the only species that I know of that is able to destroy ecosystems.

Do you agree with these two general observations?

He won't agree because neither is true. Ecosystems have been naturally eradicated and different ones imposed on the landscape countless times in the past.

Other animals besides humans can destroy ecosystems. Beavers do. They destroy an existing dry land ecosystem and impose upon it a wetland, which soon has wetland species, plants, birds, mammals, fish.
21
It's true I don't know much about natural die-offs of this nature. But can you refute my observations about the Norms of grazing animals in nature? That grazing animals typically don't like to eat soiled grass? That they like to graze and then move to new grass? And that the same grazing animals or other grazing animals do not return to this already grazed grass for a certain period of time? And that grazing animals in nature typically graze in herds? And that this whole system could be characterized as... Bunch. Move. Rest....?

It depends on what grazing animal you are talking about, on the time of year, and other biological factors typical of whatever species you're talking about. Banteng and Gaur, two wild cattle species, live in forests and jungles, not on grassy plains, Banteng cows follow a matriarch, the bulls are solitary. Gaur have similarly solitary males. Many grazing animals live in very small herds, so 'bunching' isn't an accurate description at all. Others follow strict migration patterns. Quite a few small antelope species are solitary and never maintain herds, so no 'bunching' for them.

You could describe any social animal as 'bunching, moving, resting' if you ignore all their other behaviours. Chimps 'bunch, move, rest'. So do bees, some black bears, wolves, coyotes, lions.

Quote
That grazing animals typically don't like to eat soiled grass? That they like to graze and then move to new grass? And that the same grazing animals or other grazing animals do not return to this already grazed grass for a certain period of time?

Most animals, grazers or not, instinctively don't eat soiled food, and of course grazers move to new grass because they prefer different parts or ages or species of grass. Most grazers likely don't return for some time, they have patterns of migration.

But what you do does not mimic those patterns. You are imposing a pattern on your livestock. You are deciding what patch of forage they eat and when. On their own, your goats, sheep and cow might make quite different choices of food. They are aware in ways you are not which grasses are most tender or most tasty or most desirable. Their preferences may mirror their bodily needs, just as a human only fed donuts for a few days will crave protein.
22
"Nature Knows Best" ~ Dave Hawkins

Quote
In one of the worst mammal die-offs in recent history, as many as 211,000 saiga antelope (Saiga tatarica) perished earlier this year in Central Asia.

Quote
Although the die-off is not completely understood, experts have narrowed down the possible culprits: sharp changes in weather and bacteria gone bad. Here's the theory in a nutshell: a drastic drop in temperature stressed out the saigas, weakening their immune systems and triggering usually harmless bacteria to explode into violent infections, causing extensive internal bleeding that kills the animals in a matter of hours. Timing is also a crucial consideration. Most of the female saigas were nursing newborns or about to give birth in May, and the animals had already shed their winter coats. And if that wasn't enough to stress them out, the herd was also feeding on newly sprouted grasses that require added energy to break down as quickly as possible, putting extra strain on their bodies.

https://www.earthtouchnews.com/conservation/endangered/five-things-you-need-to-know-about-the-saiga-die-off/

Note: These die-offs have been recorded since as early as 1955, and probably happened before. Nature's knowledgeable best sometimes (in fact distressingly often) includes mass die-offs, extinctions, and a great deal of suffering, without even any significant input from humans.

You often pretend to know something about 'Nature', but in reality, you're pretty damn clueless. Nature gives not one shit about you or your goats, nor your claims of "working with nature". Nature isn't an entity, Gaia is a metaphor, not a placatable goddess.
23
You mentioned poisonous plants.

What do you think I should do about them on my land, given the animals that I have?

Sure hope you don't have any white snakeroot on your property, considering that it's indigenous to Missouri.
Quote
"Occurs in rich or rocky woods, bottomland forests, bases and ledges of bluffs, clearings, banks of streams and rivers, pastures, old fields, roadsides, waste places and other open, disturbed areas. The common name comes from an old and incorrect belief that this plant could help treat snakebites. Instead, this plant is toxic to mammals and can kill cattle and horses (where the malady is called "trembles") as well as humans, who can be killed by drinking milk from poisoned cattle."


Now, this ^^^^ is what I call a useful, informative post. I hope you paid attention to this one, Dave.
Why should I?  Not a single HMG practitioner I have ever sat under in class has EVER mentioned a single poisonous plant or the need to account for them in any way. The reason you think this is important can only be that you have been brainwashed, either consciously or unconsciously, by modern conventional agricultural thinking.

Which is complete garbage.

Worse than garbage, actually. It is literally destroying our planet.

See?

No one mentioned it (that he remembers) in a class/workshop, so the problem doesn't exist. He's unaware that most people would use such classes as a starting point, or as additional information gathering, and that they would have invested time and effort into a great deal of additional learning through reading or other classes or from other knowledgeable people.
like Borealis for example. Everyone should consult Borealis before launching their own Farm Enterprise.

Lol


Arse. You think everyone is as arrogant and proudly ignorant and uncaring as yourself. What did I say, really, except that people ordinarily try to learn something about what they are doing or planning to do? That lots of people already possess useful knowledge relevant to their activities?

Mountain climbers learn about different kinds of terrain; they don't in ignorance ignore the pitfalls of climbing steep slopes covered with scree, or stepping too close to the edge of snow covered drop-offs. Welders don't work without protection for their eyes and faces, and they hang curtains at construction sites to prevent curious onlookers hurting their own eyes when certain types of welding are being done.

People normally learn to recognise and mitigate possible harm, as opposed to thinking happy ignorance will protect them and theirs.
24
You mentioned poisonous plants.

What do you think I should do about them on my land, given the animals that I have?

Sure hope you don't have any white snakeroot on your property, considering that it's indigenous to Missouri.
Quote
"Occurs in rich or rocky woods, bottomland forests, bases and ledges of bluffs, clearings, banks of streams and rivers, pastures, old fields, roadsides, waste places and other open, disturbed areas. The common name comes from an old and incorrect belief that this plant could help treat snakebites. Instead, this plant is toxic to mammals and can kill cattle and horses (where the malady is called "trembles") as well as humans, who can be killed by drinking milk from poisoned cattle."


Now, this ^^^^ is what I call a useful, informative post. I hope you paid attention to this one, Dave.
Why should I?  Not a single HMG practitioner I have ever sat under in class has EVER mentioned a single poisonous plant or the need to account for them in any way. The reason you think this is important can only be that you have been brainwashed, either consciously or unconsciously, by modern conventional agricultural thinking.

Which is complete garbage.

Worse than garbage, actually. It is literally destroying our planet.

See?

No one mentioned it (that he remembers) in a class/workshop, so the problem doesn't exist. He's unaware that most people would use such classes as a starting point, or as additional information gathering, and that they would have invested time and effort into a great deal of additional learning through reading or other classes or from other knowledgeable people.

Or, like countless other farm kids, they were taught incrementally by parents saying "Don't eat that, it will make you sick".
25
You mentioned poisonous plants.

What do you think I should do about them on my land, given the animals that I have?

Sure hope you don't have any white snakeroot on your property, considering that it's indigenous to Missouri.
Quote
"Occurs in rich or rocky woods, bottomland forests, bases and ledges of bluffs, clearings, banks of streams and rivers, pastures, old fields, roadsides, waste places and other open, disturbed areas. The common name comes from an old and incorrect belief that this plant could help treat snakebites. Instead, this plant is toxic to mammals and can kill cattle and horses (where the malady is called "trembles") as well as humans, who can be killed by drinking milk from poisoned cattle."


Now, this ^^^^ is what I call a useful, informative post. I hope you paid attention to this one, Dave.

He won't. The topic of toxic plants that tend to grow especially on the margins of fields and in less grassy areas (and sometimes even in thick grass) was discussed ages ago at old TR, probably with the same links and information re Missouri. Dave refused to even contemplate the idea of looking around his land to see what might be growing there, scoffed at the very idea that he needed to know anything about toxic plants, or that there was any merit at all to learning to recognise any plant at all.

He might be lucky enough that the property he lives on has none of the listed species. He doesn't care to find out in the usual manner, in which farmers at least know the common names of plants long known to cause illness in livestock.

My property is small and not suitable for livestock - maybe one goat - but there are at least three plant species, one in abundance which has its toxicity starkly identified in its common name - Lambkill - that grow on it that I would try to eradicate if I wanted a goat. Dave would let nature take its course, I guess.