Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational: The best at being a message board.

Recent Posts

Thank you. I know I'm not owed any lessons on civil rights law from Pavlovs Dog, but at least I've learned that there's no point to me trying to dispute anything in this topic with him.
Hypothesis:  My goats will produce milk just fine on forage alone - no grain - and will be healthy and happy and get pregnant and have kids each year with no meds.

Observation:  They are

Conslusion:  Maybe you don't need grain or meds after all, like the grain companies and vets want you to believe.

Science Baby!
so what exactly would your version of science contribute that my version has not contributed? Yes I realize we would have a nice neat little notebook which we could refer to for each day's milking and it would have a very exact entry for each day. And perhaps the same little notebook would record the types of grass species in front of the goats for each particular day. But what would all that extra effort gain us? Would my goats be more healthy? More happy? How would you measure that because they seem pretty healthy and happy now. Would they have 3 kids per year instead of 2? Get pregnant twice a year instead of once a year? Would  they produce more milk? Better milk? I'm really honestly trying to understand what your goal is here in trying to get me to do science more your way.

Dave, are you not hoping other people will emulate you? Follow your example?

How are they supposed to do that when, having gotten a piece of pasture and woodland, they have nfi whether that land and its soil and its grasses etc. are anything at all like yours? If, as is going to be the case unless they are next door to you in Missouri, their topsoil starts out much more shallow, with fewer extant nutrients than yours, more or less organic matter, more or less sand or clay, with different biodiversity, different grasses, different trees, different climate, etc., they aren't likely to get the same results.

Whereas, had you had your soil tested several times over the past two years, kept track of what grows in your pasture, if and how that has changed, knew whether the protein content of your pasture had been raised and at what rate it grows, had some idea of the protein conent of your milk, the weight of your goats over time, and so on - IOW, had any real data to support your contention that what you're doing works and if they do similar, it may have a good result, then there's be something to aim for.

My sister's pasture is on a gentle hill. It is a clay drumlin full of gravel and small boulders. The soil is sticky and clumps - you could make pottery of it. The climate is wet - dig a hole for a clothesline post any time from April to late july and it will fill with water. The last thing she'd need to do is try to retain water - she'd need it to drain off to prevent root rot in most of the grasses you're depending on. The season is shorter and colder than Missouri's. The winters can be bitter, with snow so deep a moose would have trouble reaching the grass, let alone a goat. Yet that pasture land has supported horses and cows, grown potatos, turnips, beets, cabbages, etc. But not by following your blurry example.

Your approach is 'one size fits all', and worse, no data that someone with pasture like my sister's could extrapolate from - how much SOM, what level of nutrients, how much tree fodder, what kind of trees? You offer very little to work from.
You were misrepresenting me, Dave. You misrepresented whether I had challenged your argument; you did so by ignoring the bacteria part of the post. Read Faid's puppet post.
I did not misrepresent you. I simply ignored you.
Bullshit, Dave.

The whole point of my post was to rebut a claim you were making. You were essentially claiming that low = impossible. In context, the number shows that low is not impossible. When taken out of context, it seems to support your claim that it is too low. That is misrepresentation.
You were misrepresenting me, Dave. You misrepresented whether I had challenged your argument; you did so by ignoring the bacteria part of the post. Read Faid's puppet post.
I did not misrepresent you. I simply ignored you.
Depending on how many goats you had, it could tell you:

How much more or less often your goats were sick (and if it were statistically significant)
How much more or less milk was produced (and if that were statistically significant)
Whether the milk included more or less essential nutrients (and if it were statistically significant)
the milk nutrient analysis would be interesting and I hope to do that at some point. I have already begun doing something along those lines by having my pasture grasses tested. But my goats have never been sick except for one time for about 24 hours and I already know that was my fault and I immediately corrected the problem. So what would I even track? As for milk quantity, I already have a very good feel for how it goes with each lactation and I'm quite happy with it so why should I keep any more detailed records?
I don't see how that changes anything other than it's a little more polite because it acknowledges your calculation about bacteria.  you do believe that Don battens number is Bonkers and you believe that your number is much more reasonable so my post simply Echoed that fact.
Because it acknowledges the existence of a counterargument relevant to the number I calculated. Because it acknowledges the context, rather than deliberately and dishonestly pretending there is no counterargument there.
okay well you and I have a very different idea of what quote mining is. I think quote mining is taking a select snippet out of context and using it to try to make the person say something that he does not believe and would not say. You on the other hand, do believe that that number that you calculated is a reasonable number so I'm not misrepresenting you by using it. You seem to just be ticked off that I did not acknowledge your bacteria argument and that's fine. We sometimes do get ticked off when people don't acknowledge us, but it's not quote mining.
Goddamn you are deluded.
You were misrepresenting me, Dave. You misrepresented whether I had challenged your argument; you did so by ignoring the bacteria part of the post. Read Faid's puppet post.
I think you misunderstood him. Reread what he wrote, keeping in mind the distinctions he was drawing.
Measure your milk by goat, record daily
You were shown a measure from the 18th century used for that purpose.
Science / 2nd flu in 3 months.
Last post by Worldtraveller -
This sucks.   :stareicide:

Both times, after flying on a commercial flight. This last one, the entire plane sounded like a flu ward, and the 19 year old kind right next to me was hacking into his sleeve the entire flight. I pretty much knew I was doomed. 

So assuming I live through this it still worth getting a flu shot? I wouldn't be surprised if I was exposed to all 39473947 strains currently going around on that last flight.