Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TalkRational:  Memescape that

Topic: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World) (Read 109001 times) previous topic - next topic

entropy and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • Fenrir
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #19875
Also that mowed bit appears to be significantly wider than goatbox.

Hmmm
It's what plants crave.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #19876
Jesus Christ if I had your ten acres to farm sustainably, I'd be feeding a hell of a lot more than a quarter of one person. And there would be green stuff in the boxes too. I'd probably also be contributing to the local economy by hiring people.

https://zengerfarm.org

I think these guys farm 4 acres, sustainably.
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 #19877
Jesus Christ you're awesome!

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #19878
 How much land do you have? And how many food calories of milk, meat and eggs did you produce last year?

 And why does it take balls to post pictures of my grass?

  • Fenrir
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #19879
If your much-vaunted methods work as you claim there should be a visible difference between areas the goatbox has been dragged over and areas it has not.

I'm not seeing it.
It's what plants crave.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #19880
Lol

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #19881
He doesn't see a difference ...

Oh my sides!

Hey why does it take balls to post pics of my grass?

  • Fenrir
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #19882
He doesn't see a difference ...

Oh my sides!

Hey why does it take balls to post pics of my grass?

Because it's an objective test of your claims.

And no, apart from a bit of old dead leaf material on the left I'm not seeing any great difference.

I'm also wondering why the mown/grazed track is wider than goatschwitz and how your winch manages to pull it in curves.
It's what plants crave.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #19883
Definitely more carbon on the left side.
Is that the goat-cage side?
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • Zombies!
  • Honorary Manipulative Bitch
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #19884

Did Dave actually say that this was his land?  I remember a sleight of hand he tried to pull in the past.
My own theory is that he kens fine he jist disnae wantae.

  • Zombies!
  • Honorary Manipulative Bitch
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #19885
Did Dave ever explain WHY he doesn't engage?
I remember him saying that that's not why he's here, but has he rationalized it publicly?
Anyone reading here knows why he doesn't hold himself to the same high standards of honesty and effort, why he expects so much more from scientists than he expects of himself.  We have seen the ass whuppins, we can almost smell the ButtHurt, and the seething jealousy.

I just want to hear it in HIS words.
My own theory is that he kens fine he jist disnae wantae.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #19886
"But Dave, Newton was wrong about alchemy and Bible prophecy. Why don't you address Pingu's critique of those things?"
This isn't really a good analogy. You requested a critique of Savory's claims. She did so. The claims critiqued had direct bearing on the subject at hand (agriculture and how to 'save' it). Now, if you are conceding that those specific claims are as groundless as alchemy, that's fine, but you should say so a little more directly.

One other thing, on the subject of soil compaction. He's sugesting it's a good thing for the soil to be compacted if I understand his argument, but the subsoil ("keyline" if you prefer) plowing, which you seem to also buy into, is specifically to reverse soil compaction.

In your view, is soil compaction helpful or harmful to soil health?

  • Zombies!
  • Honorary Manipulative Bitch
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #19887
"But Dave, Newton was wrong about alchemy and Bible prophecy. Why don't you address Pingu's critique of those things?"
This isn't really a good analogy. You requested a critique of Savory's claims. She did so. The claims critiqued had direct bearing on the subject at hand (agriculture and how to 'save' it). Now, if you are conceding that those specific claims are as groundless as alchemy, that's fine, but you should say so a little more directly.

One other thing, on the subject of soil compaction. He's sugesting it's a good thing for the soil to be compacted if I understand his argument, but the subsoil ("keyline" if you prefer) plowing, which you seem to also buy into, is specifically to reverse soil compaction.

In your view, is soil compaction helpful or harmful to soil health?
My own theory is that he kens fine he jist disnae wantae.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #19888
1. I'm not seeing any great difference apart from more dead leaves on the left.

2. Your winch pulls the goatbox in curves?
Why did I need "balls" to post a pic of my grass?
Does your winch pull the goat pen in curves? (I'm actually seeing a way this could make sense, but want to get a discription of your system first. (I'm catching up on the thread so I'll respond if you already detailed this)

Also, it's hard to really see the difference with the old growth there. It just looks like a mowed patch next to an unmowed patch currently.

  • JonF
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #19889
You guys can't even get your heads around the basics theory that Allan Savory promotes. It's no wonder  you don't believe his before and after photos.

Dave, the issue isn't that we "can't get our heads around the basics theory".  It's that some of it doesn't make sense, and some of it is contradicted by evidence.

Some of it however does make sense, and clearly works, at least in some environments, when practised in a certain way.
Name one thing about it that "doesn't make sense."  And one thing that is contradicted by the evidence.

(Don't shoo me off to a link.  Explain in your own words.)

Several.

That whole predators thing doesn't make sense.  Herding bovines don't graze when under threat. They do bunch up - but don't graze.  When the threat recedes, THAT is when they graze. And they spread out as far as they can.  What they DO do is migrate in herds - because herds give them a couple of kinds of protection.   They evolve to travel together, and to live and graze in herds. So grass species co-evolve not with animals that eat them bunched up, but animals that eat them while migrating in herds.

But not all grass species co-evolve with such animals.  Deer, for example, don't bunch up at all - they scatter when under threat from predators.

And on some continents, like Australia, there aren't deer either.  So the plains vegetation hasn't evolved to cope with big herds of migrating hoofed animals.  It's evolved to cope with relatively small flocks of light-footed leaping animals.

Then there's the thing about soil compaction. That is fucked up in a lot of ways.  Soil doesn't need to be compacted by heavy mobs of grazers for seeds to germinate.  In many climates that can be damaging.

And there's there's his voodoo math on carbon sequestration. 

And his thing about resting (excluding grazers) being a cause of desertification.

And his thing about desert biotic crusts being the "cancer" fo the desert.

Basically, some of his principles work in some ecosystems and climates.  What probably works more widely is his decision-making structure - because it's more flexible.

But his insistence that ONLY cows can reverse desertifaction is not just wrong, it's potentially dangerously wrong.  The Tigray programme, for one, showed that in that particular terrain, terracing and tree planting, and exclusion of grazers, was a really successful strategy. There is no good reason or evidence to think that HMG would have done better. There are drought conditions for most of the year, and then flash flood conditions in steep terrain for a couple of months.
Pulling this forward for the ball-less asshole who asked for this but then ran like a scared bunny.
"I would never consider my evaluation of his work to be fair minded unless I had actually read his own words." - Dave Hawkins

  • davesgoats
  • goatschwitz prisoner
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #19890
Going on about  two goats in a cage not being a "herd" again misses the point. You guys are great at missing points.

I'll try to explain this using small words.

If you want to condense this down further into just four words you could do it as follows...

GRAZERS ON THE MOVE

Which of course perfectly describes my goats.

There you go.  You're welcome!
Why put the bunnies with the goats?  Because that's  closer to how they are in nature.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #19891
If your much-vaunted methods work as you claim there should be a visible difference between areas the goatbox has been dragged over and areas it has not.

I'm not seeing it.
I suggest glasses. Or contacts. Or perhaps Lasix surgery.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #19892
If your much-vaunted methods work as you claim there should be a visible difference between areas the goatbox has been dragged over and areas it has not.

I'm not seeing it.
I suggest glasses. Or contacts. Or perhaps Lasix surgery.

It seems that Dave is the one who might need LASIK surgery. Lasix is a diuretic.

  • fredbear
  • Militantly Confused
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #19893
If your much-vaunted methods work as you claim there should be a visible difference between areas the goatbox has been dragged over and areas it has not.

I'm not seeing it.
I suggest glasses. Or contacts. Or perhaps Lasix surgery.
Maybe you could take a stab at explaining what the photo is supposed to be of. You know, for those of us not blessed with high-speed minds running circles around those less equipped.
"...without considering any evidence at all - that my views are more likely - on average - to be correct.  Because the mainstream is almost always wrong" - Dave Hawkins

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #19894

Did Dave actually say that this was his land?  I remember a sleight of hand he tried to pull in the past.
Lol

Yes it's my land. No the winch does not pull the pen in a curve.  This is a picture of the track where the goat pen went last year, pulled by hand.  Right side of the picture is goat pen track. Left side of the picture was not grazed.  The ungrazed portion has lots of oxidized grass.  Ungrazed grass on the left has lots of old dead growth that has to somehow get out of the way to make room for new growth.   There are two ways that this can happen... oxidation which takes a long time, or passing it through the bowels of a ruminant and transforming it into manure.   The latter option is much quicker and it also has the advantage of feeding the animals which produce a profit for the farm. It also feeds the soil more quickly which in turn causes the grass to be more productive, so the whole thing is a positive feedback loop.
  • Last Edit: March 21, 2017, 06:44:05 AM by Dave Hawkins

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #19895
 I guess Siri thought I was talking about the diuretic.

  • davesgoats
  • goatschwitz prisoner
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #19896

 ::)
Why put the bunnies with the goats?  Because that's  closer to how they are in nature.

  • Photon
  • I interfere with myself
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #19897
I guess Siri thought I was talking about the diuretic.
Well since you think raw milk from grass-fed beef heals dental caries, why not believe splashing stuff in your eyes that makes you piss improves eyesight?

You don't have a history of following evidence, and it's clear you don't have a clue about hypothesis testing, and are abysmally bad at confusing causation with correlation, and with you having no actual methodology by which to determine whether something is true, who knows what crazy shit you believe (beyond the crazy shit you already claim to)?

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #19898
Having balls would be more like going back to the point in the lake thread where you realized that if you were to follow the evidence it was leading you off the biblical errancy cliff and address the reason that you immediately pivoted to the "elephant in the room" that you can't just pretend there wasn't a flood just because the evidence points to the fact that there wasn't a flood.
This might be worth quoting here and there, now and again.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #19899
Lol again