Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational: The home of your next meltdown.

Topic: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World) (Read 209226 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #35275
It IS true that Joe Hopping has developed a strain of low maintenance hair sheep. He uses a completely unforgiving culling system, such that if a ewe requires assistance or special intervention for anything, it is removed from the herd. That means intervention for parasites, vaccination, birthing, or hoof issues. They noticed early on that sheep with darker hooves required less trimming, and they preferentially bred those individuals.

The result, after about 20 years, is a relatively low maintenance hair sheep, that they don't treat, vaccinate, or hoof trim in any way. In the rare case where a hoof needs minor attention, they'll run the sheep around on concrete with herding dogs to file them down.  I was genuinely surprised they do no trimming. I would have thought that growth rate of hooves in otherwise healthy individuals would be really difficult to arrest by breeding.

Now, however, there still is variation among the sheep, and they still produce individuals requiring culling for various reasons. Dave might luck out and not have to do any intervention, but it is by no means a guarantee. 
Well congrats.  Someone here finally acknowledged the truth about this type of sheep.  And yes, I have Joe Hopping stock.
Way to miss the point.
what do you think the point was?
that in a large herd you still have culling to do.
of course you have culling to do. You are always culling. You are never done culling. Did you think I said that culling stops at some point? Why would you think that?
So you cull the stock That needs maintenance and voila - a maintenance-free flock!
Yup

Quote
Is the increase in quality of stock due to better pasture conditions or to culling? Which has more effect? How do you know?
Both

Don't know. Don't care. You just do it.

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #35276
So much for proactive monitoring  ::)
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #35277
I proactively monitor every day.

Face it Pingu...

You did a giant face plant when you said that Allan Savory was a shyster and now you won't back down so your only recourse is to say I'm a shyster too.

Which is hilarious.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #35278
It IS true that Joe Hopping has developed a strain of low maintenance hair sheep. He uses a completely unforgiving culling system, such that if a ewe requires assistance or special intervention for anything, it is removed from the herd. That means intervention for parasites, vaccination, birthing, or hoof issues. They noticed early on that sheep with darker hooves required less trimming, and they preferentially bred those individuals.

The result, after about 20 years, is a relatively low maintenance hair sheep, that they don't treat, vaccinate, or hoof trim in any way. In the rare case where a hoof needs minor attention, they'll run the sheep around on concrete with herding dogs to file them down.  I was genuinely surprised they do no trimming. I would have thought that growth rate of hooves in otherwise healthy individuals would be really difficult to arrest by breeding.

Now, however, there still is variation among the sheep, and they still produce individuals requiring culling for various reasons. Dave might luck out and not have to do any intervention, but it is by no means a guarantee. 
Well congrats.  Someone here finally acknowledged the truth about this type of sheep.  And yes, I have Joe Hopping stock.
Way to miss the point.
what do you think the point was?
that in a large herd you still have culling to do.
of course you have culling to do. You are always culling. You are never done culling. Did you think I said that culling stops at some point? Why would you think that?
So you cull the stock That needs maintenance and voila - a maintenance-free flock!
Yup

Quote
Is the increase in quality of stock due to better pasture conditions or to culling? Which has more effect? How do you know?
Both

Don't know. Don't care. You just do it.
so, when you cull from a herd of, say, 2, do you get the same benefits of culling that you do from a herd of, say, 200?
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 #35279
It's easy to only have maintenance-free things. Just get rid of anything you have that requires maintenance!

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #35280
I proactively monitor every day.

But you refuse to say how.

You said "carrying capacity".  When I asked you how you measured it, you rudely told me that you'd already said.  When I checked, it turned out you hadn't.  You said you "could only guess". Then you said you'd be able to estimate it after several years.

Which isn't "proactive monitoring".

So you then muttered something about bare patches.

Then earthworms.  And wildlife visits.

So HOW are you monitoring these things?



Face it Pingu...

You did a giant face plant when you said that Allan Savory was a shyster and now you won't back down so your only recourse is to say I'm a shyster too.

Nope.  I still think he's a shyster. That doesn't stop me knowing what his principles are, the ones you claim to be following.  But it turns out you aren't.

So you are a shyster's shyster.

Which is hilarious.

I guess.  Pretending to follow the precepts of someone who pretends to have evidence that they work is sort of hilarious.

It's not that I think Savory is altogether wrong.  But you can be half right and still be a shyster.

  • Last Edit: February 22, 2018, 12:58:06 PM by Pingu
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #35281
It's easy to only have maintenance-free things. Just get rid of anything you have that requires maintenance!
Yup ... that's the idea.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #35282
LOL. It's also easy to have no inputs when you don't count anything you add to the system as an input!

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #35283
It's easy to only have maintenance-free things. Just get rid of anything you have that requires maintenance!
Yup ... that's the idea.

It is of course exactly how NATURAL selection works.  Variants that aren't robust tend not to leave offspring.  Neat system, really.

I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • Martin.au
  • Thingyologist
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #35284

"So what indicators of ecosystem health are YOU using?"

Carrying capacity increase.

As I have mentioned before.

And, as I asked you before, how are you measuring carrying capacity increase?

You couldn't answer.
no, I answered. You either forgot I answered or never bothered to read it in the first place. You should really stop accusing me of incompetence when it's really you that's incompetent.
Link or retract
...
again
Learn to read and pay attention. Or else get a little humility and then maybe I might help you.

You trying this stunt again, Dave?
How'd that work for you last time?
"That which can be asserted with evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." (Dave Hawkins)

  • Fenrir
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #35285
As an aside, I find it sort of interesting - and telling - that whenever anyone mentions the importance of understanding the species within his ecosystem, Dave always assumes we are talking about "plants". 

Typically he will denigrate that as an "inventory" of plants.  Here he dismisses it as "plant analysis".

Better evidence of his inability to understand the intrinsically holistic nature of ecology could scarely be had.



"I can't spell cow. But I can lift one. Hurr Hurr."
It's what plants crave.

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #35286

"So what indicators of ecosystem health are YOU using?"

Carrying capacity increase.

As I have mentioned before.

And, as I asked you before, how are you measuring carrying capacity increase?

You couldn't answer.
no, I answered. You either forgot I answered or never bothered to read it in the first place. You should really stop accusing me of incompetence when it's really you that's incompetent.
Link or retract
...
again
Learn to read and pay attention. Or else get a little humility and then maybe I might help you.

You trying this stunt again, Dave?
How'd that work for you last time?

It didn't work this time.  Of course he hadn't actually told us how he measured it.  What he'd said was this:

At this point I can only guess what my carrying capacity is. A dairy cow counts for at least one and a half animal units, maybe two. And I really don't know how many sheep and goats it takes to equal one animal unit ... assuming I keep all offspring on site until they reach 9 months of age, I'm guessing that 3 to 4 ewes / goats with their offspring might equal one animal unit.

In other words he just lied.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • Martin.au
  • Thingyologist
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #35287
Again :D
"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 #35288
It's easy to only have maintenance-free things. Just get rid of anything you have that requires maintenance!
Yup ... that's the idea.

It is of course exactly how NATURAL selection works.  Variants that aren't robust tend not to leave offspring.  Neat system, really.


Yup

  • uncool
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #35289
It's easy to only have maintenance-free things. Just get rid of anything you have that requires maintenance!
Yup ... that's the idea.
And replace it with a new one.

So sustainable. So efficient.

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #35290
Well, it worked with the tarps!
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #35291
It's easy to only have maintenance-free things. Just get rid of anything you have that requires maintenance!
Yup ... that's the idea.
And replace it with a new one.

So sustainable. So efficient.
It's actually quite.  On both counts.  I'm surprised you've never heard of artificial selection.  People have doing it for thousands of years.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #35292
It's easy to only have maintenance-free things. Just get rid of anything you have that requires maintenance!
Yup ... that's the idea.
And replace it with a new one.

So sustainable. So efficient.
It's actually quite.  On both counts.  I'm surprised you've never heard of artificial selection.  People have doing it for thousands of years.
Mother Nature is quite smart, no? Could she do it too?

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #35293
Yes of course she could.  And does.  James Shapiro gives a nice summary of how it works ...
Quote
Although there remain many gaps in our knowledge, we are now in a position to outline a distinctively 21st
century scenario for evolutionary change. The scenario includes the following elements:

(1) hereditary variation arises from the non-random action of built-in biochemical systems that mobilize DNA and carry out natural genetic engineering;
(2) major disruptions of an organism's ecology trigger cell and genome restructuring. The ecological disruptions can act directly, through stress on individuals, or indirectly, through changes in the biota that favour unusual interactions between individuals (cell fusions, interspecific hybridizations). Triggering events continue until a new ecology has emerged that is filled with organisms capable of utilizing the available resources;
(3) ecologically-triggered cell and genome restructurings produce organisms which, at some frequency, will possess novel adaptive features that suit the altered environment. Novel adaptive features can be complex from the beginning because they result from processes that operate on pre-existing functional systems, whose components can be amplified and rearranged in new combinations. Competition for resources (purifying selection) serves to eliminate those novel system architectures that are not functional in the new ecology;
(4) once ecological stability has been achieved, natural genetic engineering functions are silenced, the tempo of innovation abates, and microevolution can occur to fine-tune recent evolutionary inventions through successions of minor changes.

http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/Shapiro.2010.MobileDNA.pdf

Shapiro is one of only a handful of evolutionists that truly "get" how it works.

For example, I've not seen one person here at TR who "gets" it.

  • Faid
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #35294
It's easy to only have maintenance-free things. Just get rid of anything you have that requires maintenance!
Yup ... that's the idea.
And replace it with a new one.

So sustainable. So efficient.
It's actually quite.  On both counts.  I'm surprised you've never heard of artificial selection.  People have doing it for thousands of years.
...Working WITH Nature, not against her.

Monsanto FTW!
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 #35295

Shapiro is one of only a handful of evolutionists that truly "get" how it works.

For example, I've not seen one person here at TR who "gets" it.
Sure thing buddy.
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.

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #35296
Yes of course she could.  And does.  James Shapiro gives a nice summary of how it works ...
Quote
Although there remain many gaps in our knowledge, we are now in a position to outline a distinctively 21st
century scenario for evolutionary change. The scenario includes the following elements:

(1) hereditary variation arises from the non-random action of built-in biochemical systems that mobilize DNA and carry out natural genetic engineering;
(2) major disruptions of an organism's ecology trigger cell and genome restructuring. The ecological disruptions can act directly, through stress on individuals, or indirectly, through changes in the biota that favour unusual interactions between individuals (cell fusions, interspecific hybridizations). Triggering events continue until a new ecology has emerged that is filled with organisms capable of utilizing the available resources;
(3) ecologically-triggered cell and genome restructurings produce organisms which, at some frequency, will possess novel adaptive features that suit the altered environment. Novel adaptive features can be complex from the beginning because they result from processes that operate on pre-existing functional systems, whose components can be amplified and rearranged in new combinations. Competition for resources (purifying selection) serves to eliminate those novel system architectures that are not functional in the new ecology;
(4) once ecological stability has been achieved, natural genetic engineering functions are silenced, the tempo of innovation abates, and microevolution can occur to fine-tune recent evolutionary inventions through successions of minor changes.

http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/Shapiro.2010.MobileDNA.pdf

Shapiro is one of only a handful of evolutionists that truly "get" how it works.

For example, I've not seen one person here at TR who "gets" it.

Oh, yes you have.  You are just too stupid to understand what anyone says unless it's someone you've decided supports your preferred conclusions, even if they don't.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #35297
Here's another thing that Shapiro gets, but you Hawkinsed past it, or possibly simply stole someone else's quotemine:


Quote
This 21st century view of evolution establishes a reasonable connection between ecological changes, cell and organism responses, widespread genome restructuring, and the rapid emergence of adaptive inventions. It also answers the objections to conventional theory raised by intelligent design advocates, because evolution by natural genetic engineering has the capacity to generate complex novelties. In other words, our best defense against anti-science obscurantism comes from the study of mobile DNA because that is the subject that has most significantly transformed evolution from natural history into a vibrant empirical science.

It's in the paragraph directly below the one you cited.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #35298

Shapiro is one of only a handful of evolutionists that truly "get" how it works.

For example, I've not seen one person here at TR who "gets" it.
DK AND a total ass! 

You have read Hawkinzed snippets from Shapiro that you imagine somehow support your dumb ideas.
(They don't).

I have taught Shapiro's actual research to graduate students.

Tell me again how you  "get" it and I don't.   :awgee:
"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 #35299
Here's another thing that Shapiro gets, but you Hawkinsed past it, or possibly simply stole someone else's quotemine:


Quote
This 21st century view of evolution establishes a reasonable connection between ecological changes, cell and organism responses, widespread genome restructuring, and the rapid emergence of adaptive inventions. It also answers the objections to conventional theory raised by intelligent design advocates, because evolution by natural genetic engineering has the capacity to generate complex novelties. In other words, our best defense against anti-science obscurantism comes from the study of mobile DNA because that is the subject that has most significantly transformed evolution from natural history into a vibrant empirical science.

It's in the paragraph directly below the one you cited.

oh yeah I've read that too. It's irrelevant though because it's just Shapiro's speculation. In science, you see, observation and evidence is much more interesting than speculation.