Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TalkRational: what's your phone number?

Topic: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World) (Read 209048 times) previous topic - next topic

BenTheBiased, DaveGodfrey, VoxRat, borealis, JonF (+ 2 Hidden) and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.
  • RickB
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #34900
You think you are so smart yet you aren't even at first base yet when it comes to HMG.  For example, I don't think grass productivity numbers are even on your radar screen, whereas this is a very big deal to us HMG operators. 

You like Joel Salatin.  Or you used to.  Are you even aware of his grass productivity numbers?
I am not informed about his grass crop yields.
I've stated them here.  I'll state them again.  Joel reports his pasture as "400 cow day" which translates to 12,000 lbs DM per year which is 6 tons.  He stated in one of his books that a hay mower salesman tried to demo one of his mower blades at Joel's farm and the blades bogged down because the grass was so thick.  Now you have some perspective for my NY Facebook friend who is reporting 11 tons DM per acre per year from one section of pasture.



When are these numbers from? Is Joel currently (this year?) at 6 tons of dry matter per acre or was this from several years ago?  If not from this year, what are this years figures?

Same for you NY friend, is this current or old numbers?  If old numbers, is there a trend? 


  • RickB
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #34901
TBF, he actually said he would need to learn something:

http://talkrational.org/index.php/topic,188.msg160422.html#msg160422
He will still have to figure out what he needs to learn. That may be a challenge for our Davey.

Wait!!

I thought that Dave's system needs grass and herbivores to even get started.  If no grass then no system!!

And if there is grass then why does it matter what kind it is?  No need to get into messy details.


  • uncool
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #34902
Dave,

Are you seeing this woman's success as a model or as inspiration?

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #34903
TBF, he actually said he would need to learn something:

http://talkrational.org/index.php/topic,188.msg160422.html#msg160422
He will still have to figure out what he needs to learn. That may be a challenge for our Davey.

Wait!!

I thought that Dave's system needs grass and herbivores to even get started.  If no grass then no system!!

And if there is grass then why does it matter what kind it is?  No need to get into messy details.
Someone around here is starting to use their Noggin!

  • Martin.au
  • Thingyologist
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #34904
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?


Is this a tacit admission that you didn't in fact answer my question?
If so I accept your non-forthcoming apology for your trolling, time-wasting, lies and slander of laziness.

What's first base supposed to be? Doesn't the core of your whole idea require the implementation of your systems around the world? If so, then the potential ramifications of that idea are "first base".

First base in my opinion should be the back of the envelope calculations, a sketch of the overall concept, and a bit of consideration as to what the effects may be. So far we've seen the back of the envelope (if overly simplistic and making some very heroic assumptions), and your sketch of the overall concept. What we haven't seen is the consideration of the effects. That's what my questions are focussed on. So I'd say they are an essential part of "first base".

Hey Dave. What's this "first base" supposed to be? What issues do you have with my opinion that the back of envelope maths, sketch of overall concept and basic consideration of ramifications would all come under "first base"?
"That which can be asserted with evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." (Dave Hawkins)

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #34905

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, they do not indicate that.

Learn to read.

Yes, they do. Perhaps you should clarify your position.
Do 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? Or not. Please answer narrowly.
Of course I don't believe that.  Stupid question. 


Then you can't compare them as far as how your scheme works to generalize.
Sure you can. 

Again, the 3 basic principles work anywhere in the world where there are ...

1) Perennial grasses
2) Grazing herbivores

Goodness. This is flat out retarded. You were talking about a record crop yield in New York as a potential in Guyana.
If you would get off your "I'm smart and Dave is dumb" high horse ... you might actually learn something interesting.

First, we don't call grasses "crops."  Second, you should read "Grass Productivity" by Professor Andre Voisin ... he's the grandaddy of HMG ... Allan Savory learned this stuff from him initially.  Third, if you would study this stuff you would realize that grass productivity in MANY PLACES all over the world (probably all) can be massively increased from the average.

Most things can be massively increased from the average.

In many cases, half the things are already greater than the average.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #34906
Dave,

Are you seeing this woman's success as a model or as inspiration?
Inspiration for sure.  Possibly a model as well if the things she is doing are universally applicable.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #34907

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, they do not indicate that.

Learn to read.

Yes, they do. Perhaps you should clarify your position.
Do 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? Or not. Please answer narrowly.
Of course I don't believe that.  Stupid question. 


Then you can't compare them as far as how your scheme works to generalize.
Sure you can. 

Again, the 3 basic principles work anywhere in the world where there are ...

1) Perennial grasses
2) Grazing herbivores

Goodness. This is flat out retarded. You were talking about a record crop yield in New York as a potential in Guyana.
If you would get off your "I'm smart and Dave is dumb" high horse ... you might actually learn something interesting.

First, we don't call grasses "crops."  Second, you should read "Grass Productivity" by Professor Andre Voisin ... he's the grandaddy of HMG ... Allan Savory learned this stuff from him initially.  Third, if you would study this stuff you would realize that grass productivity in MANY PLACES all over the world (probably all) can be massively increased from the average.

Most things can be massively increased from the average.
True but not without some exceptional ingredient.

Quote
In many cases, half the things are already greater than the average.
Of course, but I'm not interested in "a little" above average.  I'm interested in the "massively" part.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #34908
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?


Is this a tacit admission that you didn't in fact answer my question?
If so I accept your non-forthcoming apology for your trolling, time-wasting, lies and slander of laziness.

What's first base supposed to be? Doesn't the core of your whole idea require the implementation of your systems around the world? If so, then the potential ramifications of that idea are "first base".

First base in my opinion should be the back of the envelope calculations, a sketch of the overall concept, and a bit of consideration as to what the effects may be. So far we've seen the back of the envelope (if overly simplistic and making some very heroic assumptions), and your sketch of the overall concept. What we haven't seen is the consideration of the effects. That's what my questions are focussed on. So I'd say they are an essential part of "first base".

Hey Dave. What's this "first base" supposed to be? What issues do you have with my opinion that the back of envelope maths, sketch of overall concept and basic consideration of ramifications would all come under "first base"?
"First Base" to me is getting your head around the fundamentals ... HMG mimicks Nature more closely than conventional ranching ... HMG restores pasture rather than degrading it.    HMG can be implemented anywhere in the world where there are perennial grasses and grazing animals.  The basic principles of HMG are ... Bunch.  Move.  Rest.  The holy grail of HMG is Grass Productivity (happens to be the title of Voisin's book ... Voisin is the granddaddy of HMG).  Up until about a week ago, the highest grass productivity numbers that I had ever heard of was "400 cow day" pasture (equivalent to about 6 tons DM per acre per year) reported by Joel Salatin in one his books ("Salad Bar Beef" I think) ... but last week a Facebook friend in New York state reported 11 tons per acre DM per year. 

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."

As for wildlife, my proposed 40 acre project in Guyana should not affect wildlife at all.  In fact, since the people will be eating much more domestic animals instead of wild animals, wildlife may rebound (currently it is somewhat depleted ... this wildlife is a perennial problem being reported with all the Wai Wai villages and is one of the key reasons they asked for help in the first place)

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #34909
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."
... sez the guy who thinks he knows more about geology than all the geologists, more about physics than all the physicists, more about genetics than all the geneticists, more about immunology than all the immunologists, more about microbiology than all the microbiologists....

Narcissistic Asymmetry ftw!
"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 #34910
But I DO have my head around "the basics" of all those various fields. 
  • Last Edit: February 19, 2018, 05:14:42 AM by Dave Hawkins

  • Martin.au
  • Thingyologist
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #34911
Buy I DO have my head around "the basics" of all those various fields. 

Not even close.
"That which can be asserted with evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." (Dave Hawkins)

  • Martin.au
  • Thingyologist
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #34912
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?


Is this a tacit admission that you didn't in fact answer my question?
If so I accept your non-forthcoming apology for your trolling, time-wasting, lies and slander of laziness.

What's first base supposed to be? Doesn't the core of your whole idea require the implementation of your systems around the world? If so, then the potential ramifications of that idea are "first base".

First base in my opinion should be the back of the envelope calculations, a sketch of the overall concept, and a bit of consideration as to what the effects may be. So far we've seen the back of the envelope (if overly simplistic and making some very heroic assumptions), and your sketch of the overall concept. What we haven't seen is the consideration of the effects. That's what my questions are focussed on. So I'd say they are an essential part of "first base".

Hey Dave. What's this "first base" supposed to be? What issues do you have with my opinion that the back of envelope maths, sketch of overall concept and basic consideration of ramifications would all come under "first base"?
"First Base" to me is getting your head around the fundamentals ... HMG mimicks Nature more closely than conventional ranching ... HMG restores pasture rather than degrading it.    HMG can be implemented anywhere in the world where there are perennial grasses and grazing animals.  The basic principles of HMG are ... Bunch.  Move.  Rest.  The holy grail of HMG is Grass Productivity (happens to be the title of Voisin's book ... Voisin is the granddaddy of HMG).  Up until about a week ago, the highest grass productivity numbers that I had ever heard of was "400 cow day" pasture (equivalent to about 6 tons DM per acre per year) reported by Joel Salatin in one his books ("Salad Bar Beef" I think) ... but last week a Facebook friend in New York state reported 11 tons per acre DM per year. 

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."

As for wildlife, my proposed 40 acre project in Guyana should not affect wildlife at all.  In fact, since the people will be eating much more domestic animals instead of wild animals, wildlife may rebound (currently it is somewhat depleted ... this wildlife is a perennial problem being reported with all the Wai Wai villages and is one of the key reasons they asked for help in the first place)


So no basic reality check involved in "first base".
I think we can safely remove "saving the world" from your plans now.
"That which can be asserted with evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." (Dave Hawkins)

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #34913
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?
So when I talk about enhancing an ecosystem or destroying an ecosystem I'm talking about increasing or decreasing the number of species and the species diversity per unit area or we could say we are increasing or decreasing the number of living cells per unit area. I think either one works.
One exception... Humans. Human cells or human individuals. My definitions only work for Non human Species.
So the more living cells of non-human species packed into a given area the better. So if you had a herd of cattle on your ecosystem, for example, the optimum state of that ecosystem would be for there to be as many cattle as possible pressed up against each other with no room to move. No bunch, move, rest. Just bunch. Again, think about what you are saying here, Dave.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #34914
I know you guys don't accept this but all deserts are man-made. It's true whether you want to believe it or not.
Can you please explain how humans made Antarctica a desert? Thanks!

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #34915
No Ben. No Martin. Not even going to refute your nonsensical statements.

Moving on now that people have no excuse for not understanding "the basics." Yes I saved them off so I can repost them from time to time for people that can't keep up.


  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #34916
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."

Well most people do know more about most things than you do, Dave, and you are an idiot.

And yes, it is hard to discuss anything with someone who is not only an ignorant idiot, but thinks he's smarter and more knowledgeable than everyone else.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #34917
No Ben. No Martin. Not even going to refute your nonsensical statements.

I don't see a nonsensical statement by either of those people.  I suspect you don't either as you aren't going to attempt to refute anything.

Moving on now that people have no excuse for not understanding "the basics." Yes I saved them off so I can repost them from time to time for people that can't keep up.

Are you seriously unable to understand the difference between "I don't agree that these are basics" and "I can't seem to remember those basics you told us"?
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #34918
My leader-follower moving pen system seems to be working well. Of course I won't consider it to be really proven until we've gone through at least a full year with everyone having their offspring successfully and so on. Target date for drying off the cow is February 25th which is less than a week away but she is still giving about 1/2 gallon per day.  My biggest question introducing the cow to this system was will she be getting enough to eat? and it does seem that she is. I will be introducing chickens again and we'll have to do some heavy duty training with my dog. I would like to try again with a piglet as well once the calf is born and I have excess milk.

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #34919
My leader-follower moving pen system seems to be working well.

So tethering a cow ahead of a winch-drawn pen is a "leader-follower" system is it?
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • Fenrir
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #34920
Yeehah. David  trying to get to first base.

Which would be great if we were playing baseball instead of hurling.

  • Last Edit: February 19, 2018, 06:08:06 AM by Fenrir
It's what plants crave.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #34921
One idea I may try for the chickens is tying my dog up at least part of the day while the chickens are out and then keeping the chickens in the pen while  the dog is loose.  It's really a puzzle because I do like this dog a lot but she does have natural hunting instincts so that's a challenge.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #34922
My leader-follower moving pen system seems to be working well.

So tethering a cow ahead of a winch-drawn pen is a "leader-follower" system is it?
Yes

  • Sea Star
  • Not an octohatter
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #34923
One idea I may try for the chickens is tying my dog up at least part of the day while the chickens are out and then keeping the chickens in the pen while  the dog is loose.  It's really a puzzle because I do like this dog a lot but she does have natural hunting instincts so that's a challenge.
Tie the next dead chicken to her for a couple days.
Quote from: Dave Hawkins on Today at 07:50:40 AM
Lol
Sea Star has been trolling me this whole time.

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #34924
My leader-follower moving pen system seems to be working well.

So tethering a cow ahead of a winch-drawn pen is a "leader-follower" system is it?
Yes

Weird nomenclature.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.