| Author | Message | ||
     Aesquire |
http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1551 | ||
| Sifo |
You've posted some interesting links Tod. You've also broken your own rules on who to believe. When it comes to global warming, you claim that any study that questions global warming is funded by oil companies and therefor can't be believed because of their profit motive. Never mind the fallacy that they are all funded by oil companies, lets focus on the simple question of how much you should trust a specific study when you know it has gotten it's funding from a source that would have an obvious bias based on profit motive. You basically dismissed the study I posted as cut and paste propaganda. This study was done by Berkeley Univ., a major left leaning university that is no friend to big corporations, or anything else that could be considered right leaning. Their study was peer reviewed and published in a scientific journal. Yet you dismiss it and choose to put your faith in what? Information provided directly from the Rodale Institute. I'm sure that they are doing great work at Radale, but seriously, try to be just a little bit consistent in your principles of what information should be believed. From what I can see Rodale is a business that is selling information on their farming "system". I have no problem with that, but please understand that the "study" that you are asking us to accept as being more factual than the Berkeley study, in reality is their marketing literature. I'm not even going to condemn them for that. I'm sure that they have select data that shows that under certain select conditions, their system performs better than conventional industrial agriculture. The problem with this, is that it's called cherry picking the data. You really discredit yourself when you falsely use this criticism of ALL studies that question global warming, but completely ignore this same principle to support organic farming. Just to give you an idea of where I'm coming from... Unlike you, I didn't drive a tractor at age 4. I did drive one at age 12 though. By that time I was big enough to reach the clutch and brake and didn't have to sit on daddy's lap. Last month we lost a bid on a 10 acre plot in Leelanau county MI. That would be the "little finger of Michigan" for those who don't know. We are actually looking at what has become a nice niche market in the area. Local organically grown hops. I have no problem at all with the concept of organically grown produce. I'm not stupid enough to let myself be unrealistically swayed by marketing material though. As for your comparison of pest control being like asking Erik how to build a bike. I'm willing to be that he would likely provide an answer that would sum up his engineering philosophy, probably focusing on what he called the trilogy of tech. From there he might provide some details on one or two examples that show that philosophy best. It's really not that difficult. Instead you tried to make organic pest control sound so complicated that the typical farmer would be hopelessly lost in how to deal with a single pest. Not really showing the organic concept in it's best light there. | ||
| Aesquire |
A good buddy grows hops & is a master brewer in PA. A local farmer grows this legacy wheat that is only (otherwise) grown in the Orkney islands. So he's working on an authentic Orkney brew and I hope he brings some in two weeks when we go camping. A couple of years ago he brought "bacon beer". No meat involved, he was experimenting with smoking the grains before brewing and made three batches.... Smokey, really smokey, and "damn, it's bacon!". I couldn't drink more than a pint or so but it was an experience. Hops has many medicinal uses. Beer being the most common. | ||
| Hootowl |
Smoked grains are not uncommon in brewing, but they're usually smoked with peat, in the same manner that grains are smoked for the making of Scotch. My favorite commercial example of this is "Kilt Lifter". http://www.fourpeaks.com/beer/mainstays/kilt-lifte r/ What did he use to smoke the grain that made it taste like bacon? | ||
| Aesquire |
He used his pig smoker... have to ask which wood. It wasn't for sale, just experimental to see which flavors came through. | ||
| Hootowl |
Maybe there's enough rendered pig stuck to the sides to impart pork flavor to anything else he stuffs in there? | ||
| Tod662 |
Sifo I knew there would be contention as to the validity of the word from the Rodale institute but come on, they are a educational institute that is extremely well known in the industry and are there for the greater good. You guys blow off 97% of climate scientists and tell me that there is no facts to prove my contentions, I show strong support for my view and it is blown off again. Look at the Rodale institutes website how much are they trying to sell? (answer: just enough to help them educate) What is an acceptable source of information, you guys blow off NASA and anything else I post. REALLY WHAT IS AN ACCEPTABLE SOURCE??? Sifo go back and read my last couple posts (and pretend its someone else name in place of mine). Im not trying to be snide or as combative as ive been on every other subject we have spared over. And my cut and paste ideology statement was not meant against the link you provided. I was commenting on the overall quality of sources on here for the last 10+ years. I sorry to hear the loss of a potential property, trust me I know, wednesday I found out that 2 banks nor a credit union, nor the FSA can help me swing my dream, we will see what happens at auction in a little bit. (i got a bike or 2 for sale if anybodys interested) And as i try to figure a business plan everybody mentions Hops... The key to organic agriculture as I said is management. If you were to name a pest species and I asked 10 farmers what works they would give me at least 11 different answers. Like I said give me specific questions and I can answer them to the best of my knowledge. Weeds are a problem that can only be physically removed by hand or cultivation, and if mother nature doesn't give you dry time to do such or rains right after thusly replanting weed roots it can be tough, but management and diversification are key. "The researchers conducted a meta-analysis of 115 studies — a dataset three times greater than previously published work — comparing organic and conventional agriculture. They found that organic yields are about 19.2 percent lower than conventional ones, a smaller difference than in previous estimates.. ###The researchers pointed out that the available studies comparing farming methods were often biased in favor of conventional agriculture, so this estimate of the yield gap is likely overestimated.### They also found that taking into account methods that optimize the productivity of organic agriculture could minimize the yield gap. They specifically highlighted two agricultural practices, multi-cropping (growing several crops together on the same field) and crop rotation, that would substantially reduce the organic-to-conventional yield gap to 9 percent and 8 percent, respectively. The yields also depended upon the type of crop grown, the researchers found. There were no significant differences between organic and conventional yield gaps for leguminous crops, such as beans, peas and lentils, for instance." this is from Sifos link. One of the limiting factors in organic farming is the varieties of organic seeds that are available, all big seed companies are working on is mostly seeds that will allow them to sell more chemicals. Sometime soon we can discuss the prevalence of nitrates in most ground water, a huge problem that is not widely known. And under perfect conditions with a heap of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers yes you will produce more corn then organically but in real world conditions no so much. Organic crops can handle adverse conditions much better both because they are healthier and because a healthy soil microbiology makes for a much healthier root structure. I found another study of studys that says that Organic crops do not produce more then conventional, their contention was that only half of the studies they looked at showed superior yields from ORGANCS but half of the studies showed no difference. You guys think im a sucker for believing what according to you is propaganda. Yet you guys believe every thing that is supported by mega corporations. Now who has more money Monsanto or the Rodale institute?, Al Gore or Chevron?, Bernie Sanders or the Koch Brothers? Yet all you guys that can't share enough hate for the left are claiming to be free thinkers. Are news reporters stupid?, are actors stupid? are teachers stupid? these are all groups that are left leaning and I am pretty sure have a higher IQ then your average person. But no according to you guys they are all easily manipulated and dumb. Come fricken on all the bullshit stories that makeup the news, they are there to stop people from seeing what is really going on. Give me a rational reason why the positions that are held by the biggest corporations are the same ones held by all of you. And you will claim to be free thinkers and find your own realities but those perfectly follow the Party, and politicians that belong (more so) to the corporate lobbyists. Answere me this do you really feel large corps. will be more benevalent with less regulation???? Most of the things you decry Hillery and Obama about are done by every rank and file repub. (and many dems) On almost every subject, you guys manage to twist around that Me who is on the side often motivated by other things then the almighty Dollar is being lead by the nose. And i never claimed to be driving at four (i was still limited to my pedal tractor), though at 6 I was operating a Mustang 185? skidsteer, scraping the barn yard, the deciding factor was when i could push the footfeet all the way down to "float" the bucket. I wasnt operating(i played around, but i mean operate) till I was 7 or 8(at 9 I got pulled over driving a truck on the hiway but thats another story,and thats how I can precisely date the other things)( I dont really care if it sounds plausible to most of you it was my life). There was no daddys lap, he was busy on another tractor, we loosened up the "snap" of the old hand clutch 2 cylinder JDs i started on though it had to be a sight when i would drive a 100 HP Duetz 100.06, new holland baler and a throw rack down the hiway at 8. Even I shake my head now when I see my nieces and cousins at that age and how small they are. Lets go back and do all question and answer, you say I dont answer questions but its kinda time consuming to try to factually answer all that is dropped here. I have lots and lots of good questions that have gone unanswered that should make you guys really think about the positions you defend. and I didn't dismiss "all" anti global warming studys, only 97% of them.  | ||
| Tod662 |
And I am going to repost this cuz if one person reads it and learns anything, my time is worthwhile. Before you guys correctly stated that I am light on research and I had to spend my morning break finding this I have been going to recommend looking into the work and research done at the Rodale Institute. this is a very balanced look at what is possible http://rodaleinstitute.org/ http://rodaleinstitute.org/our-work/farming-system s-trial/ """The Farming Systems Trial (FST)® at Rodale Institute is America’s longest running, side-by-side comparison of organic and chemical agriculture. Started in 1981 to study what happens during the transition from chemical to organic agriculture, the FST surprised a food community that still scoffed at organic practices. After an initial decline in yields during the first few years of transition, the organic system soon rebounded to match or surpass the conventional system. Over time, FST became a comparison between the long term potential of the two systems. [AND THIS IS ALL AS I HAVE SEEN OVER AND OVER, DURING THE FIRST COUPLE YEARS OF A 4 to 7 PLUS YEAR ROTATION OF CROPS, YIELDS AND CROP HEALTH MIGHT SUFFER AS FARMERS ARE LEARNING HOW TO DANCE WITH MOTHER NATURE but it gets easier] As we face uncertain and extreme weather patterns, growing scarcity and expense of oil, lack of water, and a growing population, we will require farming systems that can adapt, withstand or even mitigate these problems while producing healthy, nourishing food. After more than 30 years of side-by-side research in our Farming Systems Trial (FST), Rodale Institute has demonstrated that organic farming is better equipped to feed us now and well into the ever changing future. STUDY FACT SHEET- Organic yields match conventional yields. Organic outperforms conventional in years of drought. Organic farming systems build rather than deplete soil organic matter, making it a more sustainable system. Organic farming uses 45% less energy and is more efficient. Conventional systems produce 40% more greenhouse gases. Organic farming systems are more profitable than conventional. Although the Rodale Institute Farming Systems Trial is America’s longest-running side-by-side comparison of organic versus conventional farming, a number of universities have established long-term trials over the years. Between them all, we know that organic agriculture is more profitable, builds more soil fertility over time, and can yield just as much as conventional systems.""" and here is the whole report.(im going to have to read it soon) http://66.147.244.123/~rodalein/wp-content/uploads /2012/12/FSTbookletFINAL.pdf This is not propaganda it is research into sustainability. Sifo asking a farmer how they deal with pests is like asking Erik Buell how to design a motorcycle. There are ever varying weather, time, economical and feasibility considerations (and many more) that must be factored in. A major part of my job (as an organic certifier) is verifying the organic acceptability of "inputs". An input is anything that a producer wants to use on his farm. I think its pretty true to say that the point of all inputs is to promote or inhibit growth in a target organism on your property. We have a database that has 8000 products with a detailed explanation of how and where they can or can't be used. We also pay to use another larger database with only about 20,000 products listed. I was not trying to be contentious (and I am going to make an effort not to be) with my above post. I have limited time and many balls being juggled right now, i was trying to articulate that I dont have time to research and refute all ridiculous claims that can be found on the internet. And if you want to think the Rodale institute's work and many university studies including ones performed at my family farm are not scientifically sound (most professors were quit sceptical of the viability of organic ag and many still are)thats fine but I dont have time to research and debate the topic at this time. The answers here can not be given in fox news style news bites there are many many factors involved. The answer to most pests is management, planting and cultivating crops at the perfect time (with mother nature not always leaving the right window open) and having a clean well managed operation. Healthy crops and animals have survived for many years and can do quit well for themselves on healthy soil. I keep bringing up healthy soil microorganisms and they are more important then most even organic farmers realize. This is a topic i would like to delve deeper it to but its a aspect i am still learning more about. Organic farming is a constant experiment, farmers are always trying different crops, techniques, practices, animals, timing, and a thousand other variables. There is not one answer to any problem, there are many techniques and a farmer has to decide what works best in their situation. Both 170 grain boat tails and diatomaceous earth are great tools for the right species but a 30-06 does not (very efficiently) get rid of flies and Diatomaceous Earth will not deter deer. I am trying to spend less time devoted to forwarding a researched view point but I can't in good faith not try to shed some light on a way of life that is so dear to me. Farming is not a 40 hour a week occupation, all farming and especially organic farming is a constant struggle of second guessing the weather, extremely long hours, management decisions that might literally cost you the farm, constant struggle and yet many determined people wouldn't give it up for the world. A farmer is a bookkeeper, a laborer, a veterinarian, a plumber, a welder, an operator, a manager, a soil scientist, a wildlife expert, a marketer, a weatherman, a carpenter, a mechanic, and a always a steward of the land. | ||
| Hootowl |
"farming is a constant struggle of second guessing the weather, extremely long hours, management decisions" etc. No argument there. Never complain about a farmer with your mouth full. I just have to wonder though, if "Organic" farming is so much better, why haven't all farmers switched over? Don't people generally do what's in their own best interest? | ||
| Hootowl |
"Bernie Sanders or the Koch Brothers?" Unions give more money to politicians (let alone Soros), including Bernie, every year than the Koch brothers do. You appear to have selective outrage. Or you listen to too much left wing drivel to have a firm grasp of the reality of money and politics. The socialists/progressives are very well funded. Much more so than conservatives. | ||
| Tod662 |
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/organic- farming-yields-and-feeding-the-world-under-climate -change/ here is a very good discussion that expands upon the complexities of the issue of agriculture. And once again I am not bashing all links, what else is there, but the quality and level of scrutiny and validity is often of questionable value. | ||
| Tod662 |
Organic farming is getting bigger and bigger my company has doubled, doubled and doubled in the number of producers we certify in the last 3-4 years and I am aware ofonly a couple that have tried it and have gone back to chemical farming. Why don't they all switch, the same reason that so many working class people vote against their better good, a lot of misinformation. Hoot I guess im going to have to redouble my efforts to educate you on ol Bernie, he is against corporations 110% and walks the walk. Bernie Sanders calls rivals' cash dash 'a national disgrace' By JONATHAN TOPAZ 6/30/15 12:59 PM EDT Bernie Sanders on Tuesday is knocking his fellow presidential candidates’ last-minute cash dash before the FEC deadline, calling it “a national disgrace.” “It is a national disgrace that billionaires and other extremely wealthy people are able to heavily influence the political process by making huge contributions,” he said in a statement. “The Koch brothers alone will spend more than the Democratic and Republican parties to influence the outcome of next year’s elections. That’s not democracy, that’s oligarchy.” The statement from the Vermont independent — an ardent support of campaign finance reform who has rejected the notion of his own affiliated super PAC — said the “mad scramble” for super PAC money from other candidates is appalling. “Elections should be determined by who has the best ideas, not who can hustle the most money from the rich and powerful,” Sanders said. Several candidates have held fundraisers in the past few days to raise their last few dollars before the FEC deadline Tuesday. The second-quarter reports that come out next month will be the first time that campaigns and affiliated super PACs release their numbers — a significant test for campaigns, particularly in the Republican field, to establish their credibility. While Florida Sen. Marco Rubio is raising dollars in southern California on Tuesday and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul is in Denver, Sanders’ chief opponent — front-runner Hillary Clinton — has been in New York City the last two days raising money. On Monday evening, she spoke at a fundraiser headlined by musician Jon Bon Jovi. Sanders, who has received contributions from more than 200,000 contributors, sent a fundraising email to supporters Tuesday asking for a $3 donation before the fundraising deadline. He has tried to draw a contrast with Clinton by not accepting super PAC money, but some progressives have criticized him for hurting his presidential chances by not doing so. He’s also doing fairly well without a formal fundraising infrastructure — Sanders has raised about $8 million so far with an average donation of around $40. In the email, he accused billionaire class super PACs of “already running ads against our campaign.” Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/bernie-sande rs-fundraising-rivals-disgrace-119589.html#ixzz3gB 5BSzc4 | ||
| Hootowl |
"Bernie Sanders or the Koch Brothers?" But, since you asked, I'll answer. The Koch brothers. Of the three, who has been the one to: Spend more money every year that we collect in taxes. Restrict, or attempt to restrict, rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Embrace and perpetuate ideas and ideologies that US service members have fought and died trying to prevent from being visited upon us. Thank about that. Now, of the three, who has: First and foremost, done none of the above. Created more jobs than any politician ever hoped to. Created wealth by growing the economy, lifting more people out of poverty than any politician ever has by theft and redistribution. Do you see the pattern? Bernie talks the same talk as all the other socialists/communists of the past. Their greed and envy ends with the deaths of millions and economic ruin. He's speaking the same words. Can you not see that? Don't be one of the multitudes cheering on Mao, Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot while they vilify the successful. Don't tear down success. Encourage others to succeed. It's not a fixed size pie. When the economy grows, there's more money for more people. Show me a socialist state with more millionaires per capita than the US and I'll vote for Bernie myself. But you can't. Such a thing does not exist. Socialism brings only misery and death. Always has. (Message edited by hootowl on July 17, 2015) | ||
| Hootowl |
"The Koch brothers alone will spend more than the Democratic and Republican parties to influence the outcome of next year’s elections. That’s not democracy, that’s oligarchy.” Bernie is a man of the left, so I expect nothing else from him, spinning a truth into a lie. It's a lie in what it omits. I'm perfectly willing to believe that they spend more than the RNC and DNC combined. Those organizations are severely limited in what they can spend directly. However, Soros and several of the larger unions EACH outspend the Koch brothers every year, which means that they also outspend the RNC and DNC. If that outrages you, go after the really big money. The Koch brother are bit players compared to the SEIU. | ||
| Tod662 |
my response is moved to the dem discussion | ||
| Sifo |
Tod, there is one thing that really stick out for me in all that you said above. Much of what you talk about with "organic" farming, really has nothing to do with being organic. You keep coming back to crop rotation and multi-cropping. Neither has anything to do with being organic, and both could be done with GMOs and chemicals. Both have more to do with best practices than anything else. Crop rotation is certainly something that can be done with conventional farming methods, and should be done IMO. The feasibility of multi-cropping, I don't know much about. The point here is that while the link I provided points out that using these methods in organic farming would shrink the yield gap, I'm making the point that using these methods with conventional farming practices would certainly widen that same yield gap. This study claims that the deck has been stacked in favor of conventional farming, then they go and stack the deck in favor of organic farming by including good practices that have nothing to do with being organic. The still come up with a yield gap though. As for Rodale, I only know what is on their website. They are a for profit business. The part of their business that they seem to make money on is through their education. They are comparing their methods of conventional farming to their methods of organic farming. From what I can gather, part of that comparison involves good practices that have nothing to do with being organic, but those practices are being lumped into the organic yields. The last part alone makes any study they are doing suspicious at best. Toss in profit motive, and I have a real hard time simply accepting their results to be accurate considering they differ from results from published studies, even studies that seem to favor organic farming from left leaning sources. Next time I see my brother's brother-in-law (whatever that is to me) I'll have to run this all past him. He's the Facility Manager at Michigan Agricultural Commodities Inc. He knows a couple of things about farming. I looked him up and came across a video he posted that gave me a great laugh. Hope it provides some levity for you too... That's our place in MI. Check out all the organic hardwood. Yes we are looking at sustainable harvesting of some of that wood. It was once over harvested before our family got it. After many years, the forest is finally recovered to the point that a sustainable plan of harvesting. We have actually talked with a company that uses horses and wagons to minimize impact on the land from logging trucks. They do use modern chainsaws though. The point here is that there are all kinds of practices that can be mixed and matched to meet various needs. This brings up an issue that has been skirted around. Crop yield is typically measured in volume per acre. Nothing wrong with that, but there's more to it. Crop yield is also measured in volume per man-hour and machine-hour. When you talk of manually removing weeds from a field, this may be feasible for a small farm, but quickly becomes impossible on larger scales without vastly changing the workforce of our country back to an agricultural workforce. I'm guessing that other practices may not scale that well either. If these methods can't feed our nation, then they become nothing more than a niche market thing. I don't even have a problem with that. Like I mentioned, we are looking into exactly that ourselves. I don't think it would benefit me to make ridiculous claims though. | ||
| Reepicheep |
One who clearly presents verifiable facts and easily provable and disprovable theories. You seem really biased by "who is speaking". I interviewed somebody for a job that used to work for a big government agency. They made a snide comment about how stupid it was that they were instructed to go through all the agencies web sites and purge references to politically charged science buzzword X. They were outraged, because they believed in politically charged science buzzword X. They concluded, incorrectly, that big government agency published information was bogus because a party he didn't agree with forced a wholesale change to a position he didn't agree with. What he should have concluded, and you should conclude too, is that *all* the information that agency publishes is 90% horseshit, because *all* of it can be changed with the stroke of a pen by the party currently in power. It makes no difference if the boat is being steered right or left, it's still more bias than science. The interview didn't go well... the job that person wanted needs people that can reach the correct factual conclusions in spite of lots of spin and bias around them... not push a particular agenda. The person needed to just go be a hack for the party they aligned themselves with. Stop letting people manipulate you so easily by ad-hominin attacks (attack the speaker). Everyone has a bias, and anyone who reaches a conclusion will have reached it because they started with a bias, and when they reach the conclusion, they will have a bias for that conclusion. It's fine, and it's normal. It doesn't mean they are right, but it doesn't mean they are wrong either. Most of us here aren't scientists. But you don't have to be to see significant flaws in biased results. For example, with global warming, the fact that is as plain as the nose on my face is that 30,000 years before the first internal combustion engine ever sparked, Manhattan was under a mile deep glacier (global cooling). Many years before that, the arctic circle was a subtropical environment. Unless the universe was sensing the approach of George W. Bush, or Haliburton invented time travel and is using it to retroactively ruin the precambrian environment, there are HUGE forces at work that have MASSIVE impacts on climate change for our planet. Any global warming discussion that does not *start* with a statement like "99% of the problem is natural and unavoidable, but 1% of the problem may be man made", should be suspect on it's face just based on common sense. You don't need to be a science expert to see that. And carbon dioxide. Where is the CO2 for man made global warming coming from? Burning fossil fuels! And fossil fuels are made from Carbon that was pulled from where? The air, where it used to be, before plants fixated it and failed to decompose before they got buried. So you are telling me that the CO2 we are putting into the air was originally from.... um... the air? And that when it was there the first time, before the first man set foot on the face of the earth, it was natural. But now it's evil? Even though we aren't creating CO2 so much as re-releasing it into the atmosphere? That's where I am personally at. Do I believe in global warming? Absolutely. Do I believe in global cooling? Completely. Do I believe in anthropomorphic global warming? Yes, but I am skeptical that it is significant (or even measurable) relative to natural variations, and skeptical that even if it is significant, that it wouldn't be a net gain. (Message edited by reepicheep on July 17, 2015) | ||
| Sifo |
Any global warming discussion that does not *start* with a statement like "99% of the problem is natural and unavoidable, but 1% of the problem may be man made", should be suspect on it's face just based on common sense. And this is really the crux of the issue. Just how much is man made global warming? NOBODY has a good answer to that question. We simply don't have that much of a grasp on the science. What has been demonstrated in recent decades though, is that man's contribution is MUCH smaller that the alarmists have claimed. This is proven by the lack of warming for roughly two decades now. All while CO2 levels continue to rise. Of course the mathematics also tells us that. The effects of adding CO2 quickly reaches a point where doubling of CO2 simply doesn't add much more to the warming. This is largely due to the fact that it's effects are swamped by water vapor, which absorbs heat in the same spectrum as CO2, and is far more available in the atmosphere. The good news here is that water vapor tends to keep a fairly stable system here on our Earth. More heat gets you more water vapor, which gets you more clouds which cools the earth. Historically speaking, our ecosystem right now is quite CO2 starved. It's very difficult to reconcile that with the dire predictions of putting a small portion of that CO2 back into the atmosphere. | ||
| Tod662 |
A family can organically run hundreds of acres but not thousands very easily, I do not see that as a problem. These techniques do not scale up to the level of farming 1000's of cattle or acres very easily but those size operations are not very feasible in the long run as is. We had up to 150 cattle and 200 acres of fertile land and since the eighties our farm was no weedier then any neighbors, and we had time and resources to take some fantastic family trips. I have heard these same contentions my whole life but ive lived it and have seen plenty of others that are open minded enough to try it do it successfully. Corporations want us all jammed into cities so that their transportation costs are lowered, the idea of many smaller farmers is not a bad one, and is another reason we need alternative energy sources, when a farmer has battery packs charging in the sun or wind and isnt limited to using diesel things will be much different. The idea of a food shortage is boogie man techniques, just like the breast beating contention that we have to feed the world. Water water water. These tests can be replicated about anywhere, do you not think this could be helpful in the future? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ws1XfxVldGU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2qb-pzXJKw (the results would be the same if both samples were corn ground) As I looked for a good comprehensive comparison for soil quality of organic and conventional soil, I can't hardly find one. Its all no-till-no-till, no-till. Why is this, because the chem companies promote notill (less plowing and turning of the soil) which helps alleviate erosion but is very heavily dependent on chemicals and is only part of the bigger picture of healthy soil. But as seems to be a common occurrence with topics we discuss THERE IS TONS AND TONS of corporate sponsored misinformation out there. Even many/most people at the farm/land bureau still laugh at organics, the other side has a lot more money. If it wasn't feasible on a larger scale dont you think that would be very easily researched and shown???? By your own word you are guessing Sifo, and though your reasoning is fairly sound the real world facts are not there. And on every subject its a lot easier to find supporting words because your side holds all the dollars. rotation is a staple part, multicropping (which was studied on my family's farm in the 80s by the uw, using hairy vetch interseeded in corn to supply nitrogen) has a ways to go. Organic farming is much more then the absence of the use of carcinogenic petro based chemicals. The standard I have to inspect from, also covers all animals having access to the outdoors, erosion control policies, wildlife protections and much more. Sifo how do you define Organic? (one again I am not being contentious, i am interested in the answer) Nice video I recently saw one of snow Kayaking and can't believe a couple buddies and I haven't done it yet. | ||
| Aesquire |
What is an acceptable source of information, you guys blow off NASA and anything else I post. REALLY WHAT IS AN ACCEPTABLE SOURCE??? I just posted stuff from NASA. Some of their studies are good, some are political. I Read their magazine. You want facts on the cryogenic properties of brass pipe, that's probably trustworthy. The NEW technology for sorting flax seeds from chaff with UV cameras and a supercomputer that runs 15 Nvidia video cards? Pretty sure some company will have an improved version out next year, that actually works, and they started with the one in Tech Briefs. A statement praising an alchemist in 9th century Arabia, that's a Presidential decree, and thus is a cut and paste by a bureaucrat keeping his job. Value as good as the original source. A proclamation that the Planet is hotter than ever? Propaganda for the Establishment Funding Outline. Once again consider the Source. Hansen has done great work, but his move from public servant to political activist and his other writings show a bias out of line with reality. I haven't commented on the Rodale reports because I haven't had time to look them over, but one thing is perfectly clear. Tod has a rational bias in favor of the promotion of "Organic" stuff as he gets paid for it. Logical, understandable, and simple. Organic Farming as Tod describes it, could well be.. 1. a major step in preserving farm lands precious fertility. Or 2. a devilish, twisted pack of lies by an evil cult that wants to slaughter the bulk of humanity to make it parklike, with, of course, them and their heirs as Lords Of Creation, and all the lesser races a much reduced servant class, no longer staining the Earth with their wastes. Or, 3. a great way to make money of suckers that buy anything new and cool. With the exception, of course, of clear Pepsi, which no one bought, because that's just wrong. Personally I think it's mostly 1 & 3 with a far too big percentage of 2, which he will never admit, because stated that way, blatant & honestly, is not the way he's has it sold to him. Sorry dude, you've been had. Like his blathering about the Koch Brothers. Somehow a Liberal rights supporter ( Koch ) is an evil overlord, who want's to eat your babies, while an ex Nazi informant, who's made a fortune on ruining entire national economies, ( Soros ) is a lovable paragon of virtue. Dude, you've been played. 97% of the time. | ||
| Tod662 |
No, piss off on me getting paid for it, I have lived it and know the benefits. and you want to just disregard my opinions because I have a job related to it. Yet you swallow hook line and sinker whatever you are sold by huge corporations. get a god damn clue. I am sharing a lot more then I am comfortable doing in trying to show my background, but sure if you want to believe I am wasting my time trying to show you guys something, sure, whatever And your whole "trying to ruin the world" bit, get your head out of your ass and take a look around if you can't see the ruination of the is place caused by people motivated only in getting more insanely rich, you are a lot more simple then you have let on. | ||
| Sifo |
The idea of a food shortage is boogie man techniques, just like the breast beating contention that we have to feed the world. The history of the world shows you to be a fool if you believe that. Very entertaining though. So a family can farm a couple hundred acres organically. That's a small farm though. You grew up on a 200 acre farm with 150 cattle? Was that combined cattle and crops on that 200 acres? I'm not knocking it, but it's not really a big farm, even by family farm standards. I've got a pretty solid idea of how big that is. We had 180 acres, before we sold 2 10 acre lots. It was at one time a working farm with cattle, crops, and timber. The size of our barn alone is an interesting comparison for bigger family owned farms. It's kind of like being able to get an idea of the power of an engine by simply knowing the specs of a carburetor, a fuel injector, or an exhaust pipe. Here's the thing, I have no doubt that on your family farm you had times to relax or even get away. At the same time, I know that there are many time sensitive things that need to be done in a timely fashion, or you lose crops. Manual weed and pest control seems to be a critical path with labor requirements. Based on our discussion so far, I have to accept that this just won't scale well into a large operation, much less large commercial enterprises. This in my mind isn't a matter of one being better than the other. They are simply different. Both have pluses and minuses. A couple of the minuses for organic farming just seems to be higher labor costs per acre and lower yield ratios, on some if not all measures. How would I define organic farming? I guess avoiding the use of chemicals for weed/pest control and fertilization, and I assume it includes not using GMO crops. With livestock I would say limiting the use of antibiotics and not using added hormones to boost production. Many other things you speak of have little to do with any scientific definition of organic farming. Sustainability? Sure. Increasing yields? Sure. Can those same methods be used in non-organic farming? Sure. Clearly, your definition of organic includes many for factors than mine. That's fine, but good practices can be employed along with certain things that will keep them from meeting the either of our definitions of organic. Neither farmer should come to think that they have everything wired. There's always ways to improve how you skin your cats. BTW, Had I been asked about man causing global warming... An honest answer to their question would have me in the 97%. That was a flaw in that survey(intentional IMO). I'm curious if you understand that. | ||
| Aesquire |
and you want to just disregard my opinions because I have a job related to it. Wrong. I appreciate you letting us know you have a bias. That's way more honest than Hillary on her best day.... Doesn't mean I don't believe everything you say, either, just the parts that are batguano crazy. And your whole "trying to ruin the world" bit, get your head out of your ass and take a look around if you can't see the ruination of the is place caused by people motivated only in getting more insanely rich, you are a lot more simple then you have let on. as to the insults, Kiss my shiny metal.... Only motivated by the wannabe insanely rich? I wish. Not all the Evil in the World comes from the Rothschilds. We have at least 2 and a half full blown evil religions competing for world domination, one of them being the wack jobs of the hard care Greenie movement, who's position I listed as #2 above. | ||
| Aesquire |
Corporations want us all jammed into cities so that their transportation costs are lowered, the idea of many smaller farmers is not a bad one, Close. There' is also the "move them to the city" movement as part of UN Agenda 21. Easier to control people in an artificial environment, Motive, evil domination. Small farms are wonderful. I fear today we don't have enough farmers to feed the planet with 200 acre farms. The Greenies want the population shrunk down to sustainable levels. Great idea, perhaps an idea to strive for, makes perfect sense, until you get to the moral problems. Who decides? To repeat... 2. a devilish, twisted pack of lies by an evil cult that wants to slaughter the bulk of humanity to make it parklike, with, of course, them and their heirs as Lords Of Creation, and all the lesser races a much reduced servant class, no longer staining the Earth with their wastes. Fortunately there are only a handful of the truly hardcore psycho greenies. bad news is they disproportionate influence they have. Yes, that's a deliberately insulting version of what some people actually believe. People who actually believe that deserve to be insulted. The idea of a food shortage is boogie man techniques, just like the breast beating contention that we have to feed the world. First sentence. Famine have been with us, forever. Only in the last half century or so has there been enough food to feed the current population, which may be too big to sustain for any length of time. Not all people were starving through history, but when there was weather or pest problems, many did. second sentence. Good point. No need to feed the world. Just let them die. No skin off your nose. Except they have airlines, and the poor starving masses will come here, and you'll have to pay to feed, clothe and house them. Forever. Sifo how do you define Organic? (one again I am not being contentious, i am interested in the answer) Who knows? It's changed. That's why I am properly suspicious of any thing called Organic because it has, or had, no real meaning. Carbon based chemistry? Obviously not. No pesticides, but some herbicides? Only fertilize with manure? I applaud anyone who makes it actually mean something other than a scam for huge ( and small ) corporations to make money on. You just have to live with the rational distrust of a buzz word. because it's been a meaningless buzzword for years. | ||
| Aesquire |
After screaming by Pluto faster than anything ever made by man, the New Horizons probe is now busy sending back the pictures it took on the way past. http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33570131 But the most shocking so far has been this one.  | ||
| Aesquire |
https://mobile.twitter.com/settostun/status/555479 447248568320 | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-21/ world-breaks-temperature-record-as-climate-summit- nears Locally, Feb. had 5 hours above freezing. According to the news, the days are getting shorter. At this rate, by next year we will be in total darkness. | ||
| Greatlaker |
Chicken Little posts again. | ||
| Aesquire |
http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/18l8gy/unusually -large-snowstorm | ||
| Aesquire |
The latest news on the Climate Crisis from NYC. |
