Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational: Serious Business, Serious Discussions.

Topic: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World) (Read 211334 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.
  • JonF
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39275
I've been talking about commercial fertilizer a lot because people keep talking about nutrients leaching out of the soil and the only context in which that kind of talk makes any sense is within the context of industrial farming using commercial fertilizers.
I for one have not accepted your claims about nitrogen and phosphorus, for lack of evidence provided.

But don't forget...

Potassium
Sulfur
Magnesium
Calcium
Iron
Boron
Manganese
Zinc
Molybdenum
Copper

All of which have very different chemical properties.

Why do you think these won't leach?
"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 #39276
I've been talking about commercial fertilizer a lot because people keep talking about nutrients leaching out of the soil and the only context in which that kind of talk makes any sense is within the context of industrial farming using commercial fertilizers.
I for one have not accepted your claims about nitrogen and phosphorus, for lack of evidence provided.

But don't forget...

Potassium
Sulfur
Magnesium
Calcium
Iron
Boron
Manganese
Zinc
Molybdenum
Copper

All of which have very different chemical properties.

Why do you think these won't leach?
because they are inside the bodies of soil organisms you idiot.

  • Zombies!
  • These violent delights have violent ends.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39277
Dave, you are know for a handful of things, but honesty is not one of them.
Go fuck yourself, liar. I'm the most honest person here.  Always have been.  Always will be.  You're the loser because you believe the lies about me.  Plus a myriad of other lies about Nature.
Being honest involes more than saying you are,  and falsely accusing people of things, Dave. 
You have falsely accused me and others of being everything from liars to being child molesters.  That alone is a knock at your honesty.
No I haven't. You are lying.
Be specific, do you disagree that you apologized for falsely accusing me of being a child molester?
Dave?
Dave, I asked you a question above.  Could you summon your courage and answer honestly?
I really should call your department head and tell him or her how badly you are behaving while posing as a credentialed professional scientist.

  • uncool
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39278
I've been talking about commercial fertilizer a lot because people keep talking about nutrients leaching out of the soil and the only context in which that kind of talk makes any sense is within the context of industrial farming using commercial fertilizers.
Do I have to show you the quote from the study again? No artificial fertilizers. None. And nutrients still got leached.

  • Faid
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39279
it's just that every so often my head explodes from the ineptness.
You people seem to be nothing but zombies chanting "cutting down rainforests is bad .... cutting down rainforests is bad"
Two memescape-worthy statements in one post!  :clap:
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 #39280
I've been talking about commercial fertilizer a lot because people keep talking about nutrients leaching out of the soil and the only context in which that kind of talk makes any sense is within the context of industrial farming using commercial fertilizers.
I for one have not accepted your claims about nitrogen and phosphorus, for lack of evidence provided.

But don't forget...

Potassium
Sulfur
Magnesium
Calcium
Iron
Boron
Manganese
Zinc
Molybdenum
Copper

All of which have very different chemical properties.

Why do you think these won't leach?
because they are inside the bodies of soil organisms you idiot.
And how do plants aquire those?
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.

  • JonF
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39281
I've been talking about commercial fertilizer a lot because people keep talking about nutrients leaching out of the soil and the only context in which that kind of talk makes any sense is within the context of industrial farming using commercial fertilizers.
I for one have not accepted your claims about nitrogen and phosphorus, for lack of evidence provided.

But don't forget...

Potassium
Sulfur
Magnesium
Calcium
Iron
Boron
Manganese
Zinc
Molybdenum
Copper

All of which have very different chemical properties.

Why do you think these won't leach?
because they are inside the bodies of soil organisms you idiot.
[citation required]

How do they get from allegedly inside the bodies of soil organisms into plants>
"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 #39282
The whole fucking enchilada with HMG is to mimic Nature's designs, a great example of which is found in the rainforest.

Why the fuck do you think HMG ranchers don't have to apply bagged fertilizers to make their pastures super productive, so productive that they can support two and three times the conventional stocking rates?

It's because they are following Nature's designs, a great example of which can be found in the rainforest.

Good Lord, you people are so brainwashed it's pathetic!
Nature's design for rainforests is for them to be forest, Dave, not pasture. Cutting down the trees to convert rainforest to pasture is not in any way mimicking nature's design.
it is really mind-blowing that you guys cannot connect the dots with this stuff. I guess it comes down to the brainwashing. The fertilizer sales establishment must be extremely powerful indeed.
Is this one of those times where you knew you had no counter to my point so you just decided to say whatever random nonsense popped into your head? Because that's what it looks like.
no it's just that every so often my head explodes from the ineptness.

The answer to your question is really simple. Dave Hawkins cutting down a few trees in the rainforest is not much different than elephants or dinosaurs knocking them down in the past. So yes I'm mimicking nature.
Ahahahahaha! Wow. You really come up with the dumbest shit in service of your fantasies.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39283
If that's really as creative as you can be then you've got some serious questions to ask yourself

For one thing, if you really believe that, then you really do not believe that the Wai Wai people should be eating cassava.  Because cutting down rainforests is exactly what they do in order to plant cassava. So if you are consistent with your own position, then you should campaign against them doing that.

Secondly, you should never be in favor of any of the other Wai Wai people moving over to Guyana to live in their one and a half million acre Conservation District to be near their relatives because they too will use slash-and-burn agriculture to grow cassava.

Thirdly, you should actively oppose all indigenous groups that use slash and burn agriculture to grow cassava and instead at have them all move to the cities so that they can be fed by megafarms who instead of doing small scale slash and burn, will bring their giant bulldozer and tractors. 

Then all these people can live happily ever after in their big cities and they can all get Advanced degrees and achieve world peace through industrial agriculture.
Hey moron, you're the one who bloviates about "mimicking nature," not me.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39284
But hey, cities aren't all that different from ant colonies, so it's still "mimicking nature" right?

  • Zombies!
  • These violent delights have violent ends.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39285
Dave, you are know for a handful of things, but honesty is not one of them.
Go fuck yourself, liar. I'm the most honest person here.  Always have been.  Always will be.  You're the loser because you believe the lies about me.  Plus a myriad of other lies about Nature.
Being honest involes more than saying you are,  and falsely accusing people of things, Dave. 
You have falsely accused me and others of being everything from liars to being child molesters.  That alone is a knock at your honesty.
No I haven't. You are lying.
Be specific, do you disagree that you apologized for falsely accusing me of being a child molester?
Dave?
Dave, I asked you a question above.  Could you summon your courage and answer honestly?
Dave?  I think I deserve an honest answer here, and I'm not inclined to let this go.
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 #39286
I've been talking about commercial fertilizer a lot because people keep talking about nutrients leaching out of the soil and the only context in which that kind of talk makes any sense is within the context of industrial farming using commercial fertilizers.
Or y'know huge quantities of rainfall landing on comparatively bare ground, and taking away the nutrients that are there. Leaching can occur anywhere there is huge quantities of rainfall Dave. It doesn't matter what the nutrient levels in the soil are to start with, heavy rainfall will remove them. Even if there's fuck all. Afterwards there'll be fuck all minus whatever gets washed away.

And there's fuck all nutrients in the rainforest soil because it keeps getting cycled back into the biomass. That's the whole point of the "burn" bit of "slash and burn". You burn the felled biomass to get nutrients back into the soil. And because of the high rainfall they immediately start getting leached out. Which is why the farmland rapidly becomes unproductive.

Even magic cows can't build nutrients in that kind of system. They're washed away too quickly. (And the lack of tree roots means the high level of surface runoff rapidly washes away the soil that was there too, making a bad situation worse).
Why do I bother?

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39287
Maybe you think the massive top soils of the Great Plains of yesteryear were created with commercial fertilizers of past civilizations rather than millions of Buffalo.
wtf are you talking about ? ? ?
Is anyone here talking about commercial fertilizers ?

I don't know what the voices in your head are talking about, but the rest of us here are talking about the ecology of tropical rainforests.
it was a joke. I understand that even you guys are not stupid enough to believe that the massive top soils of yesteryear in the Great Plains were created by commercial fertilizers.

But they had to be created somehow right? Do you think you can figure out how they were created?
By a climate and biome for which leaching is not a problem.

Dave, what is the average rainfall in the Guyanese rainforest? What is the average rainfall in Missouri? And what is the average rainfall in the Sahel? Now go back and look at those soil profiles I posted and actually think about how rainfall might be relevant to soil formation.
Why do I bother?

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39288
I've been talking about commercial fertilizer a lot because people keep talking about nutrients leaching out of the soil and the only context in which that kind of talk makes any sense is within the context of industrial farming using commercial fertilizers.
No. It's not.
What a stupid thing to say.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • borealis
  • Administrator
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39289
Alternative to slash and burn:

Quote
Slash-and-char is an alternative to slash-and-burn that has a lesser effect on the environment. It is the practice of charring the biomass resulting from the slashing, instead of burning it. The resulting residue matter charcoal can be utilized as biochar to improve the soil fertility.

In that context, charcoal can be made by numerous and varied methods, from the simplest (an earth cover on the pile of wood, with strategically placed vents) to the most sophisticated (a modern equipment or plant that recuperates and processes strictly all exhaust gases into pyroligneous acid and syngas).

Slash-and-char offers considerable benefits to the environment when compared to slash-and-burn.[citation needed]

It results in the creation of biochar, which can then be mixed with biomass such as crop residues, food waste, or manure, and buried in the soil to bring about the formation of terra preta. Terra preta is one of the richest soils on the planet - and the only one known to regenerate itself.

It moreover sequesters considerable quantities of carbon in the safest and most beneficial fashion, as opposite to the negative effects of the slash-and-burn. Switching to slash-and-char can sequester up to 50% of the carbon in a highly stable form.[1] The nascent carbon trading market that sponsors CO2 sequestration projects, could therefore help supplement the farmers' income while supporting a decrease in the pace of deforestation and the development of a more sustainable agriculture.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slash-and-char


Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39290
I've been talking about commercial fertilizer a lot because people keep talking about nutrients leaching out of the soil and the only context in which that kind of talk makes any sense is within the context of industrial farming using commercial fertilizers.
Do I have to show you the quote from the study again? No artificial fertilizers. None. And nutrients still got leached.
there are no nutrients to speak of in rainforest soil to begin with. Nutrients being the typical inorganic fertilizer salts that scientists always talk about.

Do you need me to give you another Elaine Ingham video and time-stamp to prove this to you?

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39291
I've been talking about commercial fertilizer a lot because people keep talking about nutrients leaching out of the soil and the only context in which that kind of talk makes any sense is within the context of industrial farming using commercial fertilizers.
I for one have not accepted your claims about nitrogen and phosphorus, for lack of evidence provided.

But don't forget...

Potassium
Sulfur
Magnesium
Calcium
Iron
Boron
Manganese
Zinc
Molybdenum
Copper

All of which have very different chemical properties.

Why do you think these won't leach?
because they are inside the bodies of soil organisms you idiot.
And how do plants aquire those?
best I can tell it's microorganisms taking a shit on root hairs

Mind you, this microorganism stuff is new to me too.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39292
The whole fucking enchilada with HMG is to mimic Nature's designs, a great example of which is found in the rainforest.

Why the fuck do you think HMG ranchers don't have to apply bagged fertilizers to make their pastures super productive, so productive that they can support two and three times the conventional stocking rates?

It's because they are following Nature's designs, a great example of which can be found in the rainforest.

Good Lord, you people are so brainwashed it's pathetic!
Nature's design for rainforests is for them to be forest, Dave, not pasture. Cutting down the trees to convert rainforest to pasture is not in any way mimicking nature's design.
it is really mind-blowing that you guys cannot connect the dots with this stuff. I guess it comes down to the brainwashing. The fertilizer sales establishment must be extremely powerful indeed.
Is this one of those times where you knew you had no counter to my point so you just decided to say whatever random nonsense popped into your head? Because that's what it looks like.
no it's just that every so often my head explodes from the ineptness.

The answer to your question is really simple. Dave Hawkins cutting down a few trees in the rainforest is not much different than elephants or dinosaurs knocking them down in the past. So yes I'm mimicking nature.
Ahahahahaha! Wow. You really come up with the dumbest shit in service of your fantasies.
you think elephants don't knock down trees? You think dinosaurs, many of which were much larger than elephants didn't knock down trees when they roamed the Earth?

  • uncool
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39293
Quote
Mind you, this microorganism stuff is new to me too.
Then perhaps you should consider not making claims so confidently and stridently?

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39294
No one is talking about "fertilizer salts".
I've been talking about commercial fertilizer a lot because people keep talking about nutrients leaching out of the soil and the only context in which that kind of talk makes any sense is within the context of industrial farming using commercial fertilizers.
Do I have to show you the quote from the study again? No artificial fertilizers. None. And nutrients still got leached.
there are no nutrients to speak of in rainforest soil to begin with. Nutrients being the typical inorganic fertilizer salts that scientists always talk about.
No, dave.
No one is talking about "fertilizer salts".
Except you.
"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 #39295
If that's really as creative as you can be then you've got some serious questions to ask yourself

For one thing, if you really believe that, then you really do not believe that the Wai Wai people should be eating cassava.  Because cutting down rainforests is exactly what they do in order to plant cassava. So if you are consistent with your own position, then you should campaign against them doing that.

Secondly, you should never be in favor of any of the other Wai Wai people moving over to Guyana to live in their one and a half million acre Conservation District to be near their relatives because they too will use slash-and-burn agriculture to grow cassava.

Thirdly, you should actively oppose all indigenous groups that use slash and burn agriculture to grow cassava and instead at have them all move to the cities so that they can be fed by megafarms who instead of doing small scale slash and burn, will bring their giant bulldozer and tractors. 

Then all these people can live happily ever after in their big cities and they can all get Advanced degrees and achieve world peace through industrial agriculture.
Hey moron, you're the one who bloviates about "mimicking nature," not me.
yes I do and my actions are consistent with my views, unlike yours. For example, under my plan, the Wai Wai people would only have to cut pastures one time and be done with it instead of having to cut new ones every two years. But you're too stupid and brainwashed to appreciate that.


Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39296
Quote
Mind you, this microorganism stuff is new to me too.
Then perhaps you should consider not making claims so confidently and stridently?
I can be quite confident and strident about certain things, such as the fact that there are virtually no salt based fertilizers to be leached in rainforest soil. I cannot be so confident and strident about all the reasons for why that is the case. Try to pay attention and follow along with the details of what I'm talking about and you will be much better off. You spend far too much time reading the stupid shit that these ignoramuses post here which is either misguided or outright lies and it diverts your attention from the important issues.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39297
my actions are consistent with my views, unlike yours.
Get a grip, Hawkins.
You are talking about a fantasy operation in the Amazon rainforest.
There are no "actions".
It's a fantasy that's not happening, and is not going to happen.
"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 #39298
The whole fucking enchilada with HMG is to mimic Nature's designs, a great example of which is found in the rainforest.

Why the fuck do you think HMG ranchers don't have to apply bagged fertilizers to make their pastures super productive, so productive that they can support two and three times the conventional stocking rates?

It's because they are following Nature's designs, a great example of which can be found in the rainforest.

Good Lord, you people are so brainwashed it's pathetic!
Nature's design for rainforests is for them to be forest, Dave, not pasture. Cutting down the trees to convert rainforest to pasture is not in any way mimicking nature's design.
it is really mind-blowing that you guys cannot connect the dots with this stuff. I guess it comes down to the brainwashing. The fertilizer sales establishment must be extremely powerful indeed.
Is this one of those times where you knew you had no counter to my point so you just decided to say whatever random nonsense popped into your head? Because that's what it looks like.
no it's just that every so often my head explodes from the ineptness.

The answer to your question is really simple. Dave Hawkins cutting down a few trees in the rainforest is not much different than elephants or dinosaurs knocking them down in the past. So yes I'm mimicking nature.
Ahahahahaha! Wow. You really come up with the dumbest shit in service of your fantasies.
you think elephants don't knock down trees? You think dinosaurs, many of which were much larger than elephants didn't knock down trees when they roamed the Earth?
Yeah I'm sure they routinely cleared 50% of any given rainforest.  ::)

  • uncool
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39299
Quote
Mind you, this microorganism stuff is new to me too.
Then perhaps you should consider not making claims so confidently and stridently?
I can be quite confident and strident about certain things, such as the fact that there are no salt based fertilizers to be leashed in rainforest soil.
Again, Dave: the study explicitly said no artificial fertilizers.
Quote
I cannot be so confident and strident about all the reasons for why that is the case. Try to pay attention and follow along with the details of what I'm talking about and you will be much better off. You spend far too much time reading the stupid shit that these ignoramuses post here which is either misguided or outright lies and it diverts your attention from the important issues.
:ironicat:

Dave, please can it with this blatant bluster. It doesn't convince anyone.