Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talkrational: I am finding your pace to currently be outstripping my give a shit.

Topic: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World) (Read 192737 times) previous topic - next topic

Dave Hawkins, Sea Star, BenTheBiased, VoxRat, entropy, whiterabbit and 6 Guests are viewing this topic.
  • borealis
  • Administrator
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39075
And for Voxrat ...

Multiple choice ...

Rainforest plants (like all plants) require NPK plus many other trace minerals.  What form do we find it in? (In rain forest soils)

A) Water soluble minerals?
B)  In bacteria, fungi and other microscopic "livestock"?
How is cutting down rainforest trees and the symbiotic fungi that help with nutrient uptake, going to improve the soil in a massively rainy environment?

He thinks grass is sufficient to replace the enormous quantity of biomass represented by rainforest foliage etc.

He thinks rainforest micro-organisms will process grass exactly as they process rainforest foliage.

He still thinks poop is magic. In fact he's a bit fixated on feces in general.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39076
There are significant patches of bare soil in your pasture? It hasn't looked that way from any of your pictures. It's looked pretty well covered to me.
There were on the east side of my creek, yes. Caught me by surprise too. I did not know I had them until I took the animals back there to graze. I had never grazed on the east side of the creek until this year.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39077
Notice I said "were"

Stay with me and answer my questions if you want to understand this stuff.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39078
I don't really care about your loaded questions and GIGO thought experiments, Dave.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39079
I guess condescension is practically hard-wired into the preacher's brain.
If he can't operate from the conviction that he is in a position to channel his deity and/or prophets to the benighted savages, his whole reason for being falls apart.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • Faid
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39080
And for Voxrat ...

Multiple choice ...

Rainforest plants (like all plants) require NPK plus many other trace minerals.  What form do we find it in? (In rain forest soils)

A) Water soluble minerals?
B)  In bacteria, fungi and other microscopic "livestock"?
How is cutting down rainforest trees and the symbiotic fungi that help with nutrient uptake, going to improve the soil in a massively rainy environment?

He thinks grass is sufficient to replace the enormous quantity of biomass represented by rainforest foliage etc.

He thinks rainforest micro-organisms will process grass exactly as they process rainforest foliage.

He still thinks poop is magic. In fact he's a bit fixated on feces in general.
Dave doesn't really grasp the concept of scale. Remember, he thought that, if a slice of fudge cake can stand on the plate and not sludge, then a mile-high vertical wall of sediment with the same density can do the same.
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.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39081
Fun biochemical fact:
Minerals have to be in soluble form for plant roots to absorb them.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • Zombies!
  • We're in the pipe, five by five.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39082
Notice I said "were"

Stay with me and answer my questions if you want to understand this stuff.
Bookmarked.
Quote from: Dave Hawkins on Sat May 19 2018
Go fuck yourself until you can learn how to respect me. Then we'll talk. And if this offends you and you don't want to participate in this thread anymore, then fine. There's plenty of other science threads to participate in.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39083
Notice I said "were"

Stay with me and answer my questions if you want to understand this stuff.

That was Pingu's attitude when it came to the C14 discussion you ran away from.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39084
I don't really care about your loaded questions and GIGO thought experiments, Dave.
It's not a thought experiment. I actually encountered bare soil and I actually applied the principles that I am preaching and actually solved it. Now do you want to understand it? Or do you just want to go on forever saying you don't understand and no one ever explained it to you? If you want to understand, then the first step is to answer my question that I asked.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39085
Fun biochemical fact:
Minerals have to be in soluble form for plant roots to absorb them.
I'm still a bit new to the topic, but believe that this is incorrect.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39086
And for Voxrat ...

Multiple choice ...

Rainforest plants (like all plants) require NPK plus many other trace minerals.  What form do we find it in? (In rain forest soils)

A) Water soluble minerals?
B)  In bacteria, fungi and other microscopic "livestock"?
For Voxrat

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39087
"How grazing a certain way is supposed to add material to soil to any noticeable degree though, I have no idea."

Yes I know. And it's sad that you have no idea, given the number of times I've explained it.
It would help if your explanations were actually explanations rather than just slogans. it would help more if you supported them with evidence.
Alright Ben, I'll help you out. Let's start at first base. Answer a question for me please. Which is better for the soil? Leaving standing dead vegetation with spaces of bare soil around it? Or somehow getting that standing dead vegetation to lie down on top of those bare spaces of soil?
^^^^ Ben?
For Ben

  • Faid
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39088
Fun biochemical fact:
Minerals have to be in soluble form for plant roots to absorb them.
I'm still a bit new to the topic, but believe that this is incorrect.
So how do roots absorb "bacteria, fungi and other microscopic 'livestock'"?
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.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39089
Fun biochemical fact:
Minerals have to be in soluble form for plant roots to absorb them.
I'm still a bit new to the topic, but believe that this is incorrect.
You believe a lot of things that are just plain wrong.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39090
And for Voxrat ...

Multiple choice ...

Rainforest plants (like all plants) require NPK plus many other trace minerals.  What form do we find it in? (In rain forest soils)

A) Water soluble minerals?
B)  In bacteria, fungi and other microscopic "livestock"?
For Voxrat
It doesn't matter what form "we" find it in.
What matters is what form the plant roots find it in.
"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 #39091
I don't really care about your loaded questions and GIGO thought experiments, Dave.
It's not a thought experiment. I actually encountered bare soil and I actually applied the principles that I am preaching and actually solved it.
Did you measure the amount of soil "uppening"? Do you know it wouldn't have happened (or happened as much) by any other method? Do you know the results would be the same under different conditions?
Now do you want to understand it? Or do you just want to go on forever saying you don't understand and no one ever explained it to you? If you want to understand, then the first step is to answer my question that I asked.
No, it's really not.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39092
Did you measure the amount of soil "uppening"? Do you know it wouldn't have happened (or happened as much) by any other method? Do you know the results would be the same under different conditions?
Also:

I had never grazed on the east side of the creek until this year.
...  I've noticed my garden has gotten a whole lot more vegetation since January, without any HMG at all!
"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 #39093
OK I'm in the mood ... let's look at this closely ... Fenrir is supposedly a professional ecologist IIRC ... let's see how much she's actually using her mind vs. how much she's just repeating assumptions that she's accepted ...
Hey David, wrt the paper Testy linked, care to explain your understanding of the difference between erosion and leaching?
Don't know. Don't care. It's not relevant to what I'm doing in Missouri or what I am proposing to do in Guyana.  You guys are always asking the wrong questions.

Oh how terribly brave and manly you're being David.

This is absolutely central to your Guyanan fantasies.

So, anyway, erosion is talking about bulk material while leaching is referencing transport of water-soluble nutrients.
So far so good.  Seems like an accurate statement.  The problem with this is not the statement itself ... the problem is that Fenrir thinks that "transport of water-soluble nutrients" is relevant to anything I'm doing in Missouri or proposing to do in Guyana.  In short, the problem is with Fenrir's ASSUMPTIONS.  Assumptions, I have discovered, are almost always the central problem with almost every topic you guys write about.  "Transport of water-soluble nutrients" IS relevant if you are a megafarm killing soil with your gigantic diesel guzzling John Deere tractor and plow, thus destroying the entire soil ecosystem in the process, necessitating the application of thousands of lbs of harsh, water soluble chemical fertilizers.  It IS relevant to that.

But that's not what I'm interested in doing.  Don't know why you keep talking about "water soluble nutrients."  (Well yes I do ... it's because you've never been taught about any other type of nutrients.)  Dr. Patricia Richardson has a neat little YouTube video which explains "non-water soluble" nitrogen.  Ask me if you're interested and I'll find the link.  You should be interested ... if you're not, then we might as well not call you an "ecologist" at all.

Rainforest soils are generally of low fertility, and heavily leached, which has a fair bit to do with that. Nutrients cannot build up in the soil as they are leached out faster than they are deposited.

In order to cope with the physical conditions rainforests have developed very rapid nutrient cycling and this is why most of the nutrients are in the biomass. Organic material is not stored in the soil. Organic material is rapidly returned to biomass.

Grass and pasture simply can't hold nutrients long term under those conditions, which is why savannas, with different physical conditions, are different to rainforests, and how often you move your stock and how stompy they are has no impact whatsoever on that reality.

Even if your imaginary HGM "uppening" was something you could actually demonstrate as being significantly greater than ordinary pasture management practices can achieve, even then it is utterly irrelevant in a tropical rainforest.

Bulk erosion leading to landslip and landscape collapse, as common as it is in cleared rainforests, is just the icing on the cake.

Got it?
Yeah I got it.  And you're absolutely right in the context of a discussion about transforming rainforest into megafarm land.

But we're not discussing that topic, are we?

Please let me know when you'd like to join this discussion instead of some other one.

Thanks.

Lotta words to say because magic. Anyway, leaching isn't stopped by hmg or even forest so you are still just wrong about the point fenrir made. Erosion may be slowed by hmg but not leaching. By removing the trees you cannot help speeding up the movement of the groundwater. It has nothing really to do with the soil except in terms of permeability it has to do with the rate of water on a surface which is much higher without trees. But whatever.  I think I'm out of this whole rainforest fantasy you've got going.
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

  • Zombies!
  • We're in the pipe, five by five.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39094
Criticizing ideas
:no:
Dave, what ideas were you talking about when you called people on this board child molesters?
Dave?
Quote from: Dave Hawkins on Sat May 19 2018
Go fuck yourself until you can learn how to respect me. Then we'll talk. And if this offends you and you don't want to participate in this thread anymore, then fine. There's plenty of other science threads to participate in.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39095
Ben and Voxrat aren't going to play my game. Okay.

First of all, Ben doesn't understand how HMG can uppen soil, and apparently he doesn't want to know. So I will take a shot at explaining it to everyone else and trying to come up with some simple memorable catch phrase that helps people understand it. So first of all to answer my own question regarding standing dead vegetation and bare ground... the answer of course is that it's much better to somehow get the standing dead vegetation trampled onto the bare ground so that it acts like a mulch and retains moisture which hopefully will allow seeds to germinate and sprout.  As I said, I had a fair amount of bare ground on the east side of my pasture this year and there was also quite a bit of standing dead vegetation. Last year I had the same situation and a local farmer friend told me I should brush hog it which I did but it didn't change anything. I still had the same problem this spring. So I grazed it instead with my movable pen. The combined action of the pen running over it and the Animals stomping it  knocked over the standing dead vegetation creating a nice layer of Mulch on the bare ground. Of course this creates the perfect situation for seed sprouting as is well known by people who do Highway repair work. So now two months later, like magic I have a nice stand of grass and weeds coming up ... my former bare areas are green. 

But wait. Has the soil uppened? 

Why yes it has. In part because that mulch layer decomposes and actually becomes the topmost layer of soil thus raising the height of the soil by a tiny amount.

Joel salatin reports soil uppening of something like 6 inches or more over quite a few years as measured by old fence posts.
  • Last Edit: May 17, 2018, 12:49:09 PM by Dave Hawkins

  • Zombies!
  • We're in the pipe, five by five.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39096
That's cool Dave, if there are no objections on your part, we can chalk that up as a DaveLie.  No need to embarrass you here
Quote from: Dave Hawkins on Sat May 19 2018
Go fuck yourself until you can learn how to respect me. Then we'll talk. And if this offends you and you don't want to participate in this thread anymore, then fine. There's plenty of other science threads to participate in.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39097
OK I'm in the mood ... let's look at this closely ... Fenrir is supposedly a professional ecologist IIRC ... let's see how much she's actually using her mind vs. how much she's just repeating assumptions that she's accepted ...
Hey David, wrt the paper Testy linked, care to explain your understanding of the difference between erosion and leaching?
Don't know. Don't care. It's not relevant to what I'm doing in Missouri or what I am proposing to do in Guyana.  You guys are always asking the wrong questions.

Oh how terribly brave and manly you're being David.

This is absolutely central to your Guyanan fantasies.

So, anyway, erosion is talking about bulk material while leaching is referencing transport of water-soluble nutrients.
So far so good.  Seems like an accurate statement.  The problem with this is not the statement itself ... the problem is that Fenrir thinks that "transport of water-soluble nutrients" is relevant to anything I'm doing in Missouri or proposing to do in Guyana.  In short, the problem is with Fenrir's ASSUMPTIONS.  Assumptions, I have discovered, are almost always the central problem with almost every topic you guys write about.  "Transport of water-soluble nutrients" IS relevant if you are a megafarm killing soil with your gigantic diesel guzzling John Deere tractor and plow, thus destroying the entire soil ecosystem in the process, necessitating the application of thousands of lbs of harsh, water soluble chemical fertilizers.  It IS relevant to that.

But that's not what I'm interested in doing.  Don't know why you keep talking about "water soluble nutrients."  (Well yes I do ... it's because you've never been taught about any other type of nutrients.)  Dr. Patricia Richardson has a neat little YouTube video which explains "non-water soluble" nitrogen.  Ask me if you're interested and I'll find the link.  You should be interested ... if you're not, then we might as well not call you an "ecologist" at all.

Rainforest soils are generally of low fertility, and heavily leached, which has a fair bit to do with that. Nutrients cannot build up in the soil as they are leached out faster than they are deposited.

In order to cope with the physical conditions rainforests have developed very rapid nutrient cycling and this is why most of the nutrients are in the biomass. Organic material is not stored in the soil. Organic material is rapidly returned to biomass.

Grass and pasture simply can't hold nutrients long term under those conditions, which is why savannas, with different physical conditions, are different to rainforests, and how often you move your stock and how stompy they are has no impact whatsoever on that reality.

Even if your imaginary HGM "uppening" was something you could actually demonstrate as being significantly greater than ordinary pasture management practices can achieve, even then it is utterly irrelevant in a tropical rainforest.

Bulk erosion leading to landslip and landscape collapse, as common as it is in cleared rainforests, is just the icing on the cake.

Got it?
Yeah I got it.  And you're absolutely right in the context of a discussion about transforming rainforest into megafarm land.

But we're not discussing that topic, are we?

Please let me know when you'd like to join this discussion instead of some other one.

Thanks.

Lotta words to say because magic. Anyway, leaching isn't stopped by hmg or even forest so you are still just wrong about the point fenrir made. Erosion may be slowed by hmg but not leaching. By removing the trees you cannot help speeding up the movement of the groundwater. It has nothing really to do with the soil except in terms of permeability it has to do with the rate of water on a surface which is much higher without trees. But whatever.  I think I'm out of this whole rainforest fantasy you've got going.
Leaching doesn't happen because there's nothing to Leach. You really are an idiot because you can't even read anything but your own posts.

  • uncool
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39098
Quote
But wait. Has the soil uppened? 

Why yes it has.
What do you say this based on?

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39099
Quote
But wait. Has the soil uppened? 

Why yes it has.
What do you say this based on?
Based on an understanding of the process and on reports of various HMG Ranchers.