What is to be grown? (Agribusiness, Organic, Local Farming Discussion)

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > What is to be grown? (Agribusiness, Organic, Local Farming Discussion)

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

Organic is a buzzword and you're buying into pseudoscience and marketing gimmicks.

And organic is incredibly destructive and encourages excessive land use for decreased yield, and utilizes substances that are more toxic than Round Up for herbicides and Insecticides that are more toxic.

CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 17:43 on Jun 10, 2016

# ¿ Jun 10, 2016 17:36

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 14, 2024 22:18

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

ReidRansom posted:

Only sometimes.

My goto example on this is milk. Milk is some very chemically complex stuff, loads and loads of poo poo in there, and while it's trivial these days to make a cow make more milk, you can't necessarily make the cow make more of all of the things that go into that milk. Organic milk therefore is typically higher in these micronutrients and can indeed provide greater health benefits to the consumer should they not be getting those nutrients elsewhere. But that isn't to say that non-organic milk is bad. Organic is expensive, and I'd rather people have milk that isn't necessarily the best it can be than no milk at all.

Now are you talking about Pasteurized milk or Milk without growth hormones?

Because no, Raw milk is bullshit.

quote:

The raw milk movement is a crank movement linked to the raw food movement. Its adherents, drawing on New age medicine, argue that pasteurization and homogenization damage the nutritional value of milk, and believe that milk which is unpasteurized and non-homogenized is healthier than the milk which is typically sold in grocery stores.[1] It should be distinguished from the movement among foodies to permit the regulated sale of raw milk and the use of raw milk for the production of other dairy products, which makes no health claims and merely reflects a preference for the flavor of raw milk and raw milk products; of course, one often leads to the other, so the line is rather thin.
Due to the possibility of unprocessed raw milk containing pathogens such as bovine tuberculosis, brucellosis, or Salmonella, most medical authorities consider raw milk to be rather dangerous, much like eating raw chicken�which is to say, safe only if painstaking procedures are followed, which most people don't;[2] as it happens, many raw milk enthusiasts are germ theory deniers and often invoke conspiratorial thinking in their defense of raw milk consumption.[3] They also invoke anecdotal evidence in defense of raw milk consumption, while bashing food safety authorities, such as the FDA, with ad hominem attacks.[4]

# ¿ Jun 10, 2016 17:49

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

ReidRansom posted:

Pasteurized milk from grass-fed cows not given hormones.

I'm not a raw milk person.

Cool, we're golden. I just posted that in case someone did come by.

# ¿ Jun 10, 2016 17:52

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

Brannock posted:

Who are you replying to? If it's me I'm not really favorable towards our (American) current definition of organic and I think we can do a hell of a lot better.

I think it's interesting that you cite decreased yield in the same breath that you condemn toxic substances. Properly managed multi-layer farming produces high yields while requiring very little external substance input. It's not widely used because it's much simpler to brute force your land and grow only a few varieties of crops or a couple types of animals.

Anything currently qualified for 'Organic' crops is more toxic than anything currently used on GMO crops and used in larger quantities and lower dilution.

And no, any definition of 'Organic' is bullshit, because it assumes some sort of flaw with Genetically Modified Crops that exists, or some risks with them. Cite your sources for 'Properly managed multi-layer farming'

# ¿ Jun 10, 2016 18:09

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

Brannock posted:

Unfortunately I suspect any sources I could provide, from my limited knowledge (I am not a farmer), would be dismissed out of hand for being biased since they're from people and groups who practice and advocate organic/small-scale/local/low-external-input/what-have-you farming. Similarly, large corporations are very unlikely to permit studies casting their own practices and production in a negative light.

Instead, I ask you to perform a simple thought experiment. Can any given plot of land support one type of crop or animal? Obviously, yes. Can it support more than one? Very likely. Will supporting more than one type of product reduce yield, that is to say, is it zero-sum? If you grow chickens (X) and vegetables (Y) on the same space of land, will the output (O) remain constant? Can you add goats, pigs, fruit, cows, herbs, flowers? I think it'd take a lot before you started running into diminishing returns, certainly more than a monoculture farm. But, of course, handling a farm with several dozen different growing products is a lot more complex and more complicated for a mechanized system to handle than fencerow-to-fencerow monoculture.

I also want to suggest that things being more expensive is not inherently or necessarily bad. Higher food prices are only a problem when people cannot afford them, which is a problem stemming in large part from our system that actively attempts to keep the poor poor. There is an enormous amount of waste in the system, as well as an enormous amount of government subsidization for farming and agriculture. Paying hypothetically $2.50 for your pound of green beans instead of $2.00 is not going to break the bank. Producing 20% fewer green beans, especially when we're already wasting a colossal amount of food, is not going to destroy the system. We might even be better off for it, if these green beans are coming from people we know and interact with, coming from farms that aren't a quarter of the planet away, and are grown in-season when the weather and the soil is appropriate for it. If we can pay slightly more for food, especially the sort of food that employs more people, is grown more conscientiously, is (arguably) of higher quality and (unarguably) of greater variety, then that seems better all around, right? It's a similar (but not identical) principle of having a $15 minimum wage.

I should point out that low food prices has, in the past, completely destroyed the market for food and caused shortages. This is why we have heavy government subsidies today. I think the subsidies do a good thing and are certainly done in good spirit, but they do mask the true cost of food, and they do incentivize extreme productions of corn in particular which ends up making its way into our food even if we aren't actually buying corn itself.

I enjoy strawberries in winter as much as anyone, but I'm well aware that it's a very luxury good that requires a lot of consumption to deliver these strawberries to my kitchen island, and that very likely the sticker price I paid for my sugar-dipped strawberries isn't anywhere close to the actual price.

Just FYI: Please cite your sources. And if you are afraid they may be called out as biased, truth is, they may be biased. The fact that you are calling attention to that is actually an issue, because unfortunately for your argument, the Organic crowed is more guilty of bias than most.

Also, promoting the idea that their is a conspiracy against Organics by mainstream groups is just that, a conspiracy theory.

Cite your sources.

# ¿ Jun 10, 2016 18:41

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

Tuxedo Gin posted:

Hey, cite yours, too.

e: You keep sayings things are objectively true, making strong claims about your argument, then demanding sources from others, without citing anything yourself.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/life...150c_story.html

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/organic-farming-yields-and-feeding-the-world-under-climate-change/

http://freakonomics.com/2011/11/14/the-inefficiency-of-local-food/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2014/11/19/why-organic-isnt-sustainable/#389337e837aa

CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 19:29 on Jun 10, 2016

# ¿ Jun 10, 2016 19:26

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

Brannock posted:

One thing Salatin didn't bring up, and one thing McWilliams didn't mention, is that we eat entirely too much meat. Any future that has improved agricultural and improved food practices will involve a lot less meat than we currently eat. That is not to say that we should eliminate animals entirely from our diet. Animals are a very useful vehicle for converting inedible biomass into human-digestible nutrients, and in particular animals are excellent at turning land that are otherwise unsuitable for growing crops into productive food environments. (There is a reason, for instance, that Scottish Highland Cattle exist. The highlands are nearly impossible to grow food in, but the cattle can transform the weeds and grasses there into food for us.)

Oh Salatin.

The guy who thinks the Wetlands produces more Methane that bovine agriculture.

Got it

quote:

Commenting on a New York Times op-ed contribution about sustainable farming and bovine methane production,[11] Salatin wrote "Wetlands emit some 95 percent of all methane in the world; herbivores are insignificant enough to not even merit consideration. Anyone who really wants to stop methane needs to start draining wetlands. Quick, or we'll all perish." He also said that most livestock producers use "Neanderthal management" that exaggerates the amount of land required, and that modern technology allows for far more sustainable land usage.

No, I'm gonna say Salatin isn't a very good source for farming tips and helping solve the ecological impact of farming.

The guy is just a farmer. That's it. No studies. No actual evidence. Just lots of first hand experience and anecdotes.

quote:

Salatin says that his Christian faith informs the way he raises and slaughters the animals on his 500-acre (2.0 km2) farm. He sees it as his responsibility to honor the animals as creatures that reflect God�s creative and abiding love, and believes his method is to honor that of God.[2] Salatin is quoted in the book The Omnivore's Dilemma (p.331) as justifying the killing of non-human animals because "people have a soul, animals don't."

"Don't worry guys, I have it in faith that my system can replace industrial agriculture!"

His system is insane. Nor is this a sustainable system. By his logic, we should all have to drive out to the farm to get all our poultry and meats. This would result in farms of massive scale surrounding cities and towns. A bunch of farmers with their own homespun wisdom on farming is not a viable solution to sustainable agriculture and farming.

Tuxedo Gin posted:

The problem with this topic is that the way we are doing things right now, works for the world right now. We are raping our agriculturally productive land. We are wasting space with useless suburban sprawl. We have massive populations in places that simply cannot support those populations.

Yes, for local community farming to be ideal we would need make some progress on problems like poverty, overpopulation, and unsustainable business and lifestyle practices. But we need to address those things anyway. Yeah, right now things work pretty loving well, for the most part. In 100+ years that probably won't be the case. Passing the buck and saying "technology will sort it out" is setting your grandkids and great grandkids for a really, really bad time.

The problems with agriculture are intertwined with economic issues and ecological issues. It is cheaper and easier to stay the course, but it isn't better. Nobody is calling for an immediate end to major industrial agriculture, but rather a shift to making local choices when you can, even if it is a little more expensive or requires you to go to a farmer's market on Sunday morning.

Local Community Farming is not going to solve anything unless we let a lot of people die. Period. Its just not feasible nor a solution worth approaching unless we nearly halve our population.

CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 21:40 on Jun 10, 2016

# ¿ Jun 10, 2016 21:33

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

Tuxedo Gin posted:

We overscaled the economy. Industrial agribusiness is dependent on government subsidies to maintain growth and profits, and a ridiculous amount of the product is thrown away every day.

.....no, we scaled a solution to meet a need. A growing population required food that popping down to the local farmers market was never going to solve.

I'll agree with you on food waste being a huge issue, but that is better tackled through other means rather than suggesting that community farms be the fix.

Tuxedo Gin posted:

Not to mention agribusiness using scarce, communal resources (like water in California, or land in general) to make bundles of cash exporting almonds and alfalfa (incredible thirsty crops, not at all suited for drought prone regions) to China. Why should they make huge profits at the expense of others? Smaller local farmers who can't afford to add a few thousand feet to their well have fallow fields because the big dogs are raping the groundwater for export profits. Even if the drought in CA suddenly ends tomorrow, it could take decades or longer to bring the groundwater to a healthy level.

That's a bigger issue, Climate Change is going to effect everything eventually, but smaller local farms are NOT going to help combat climate change. We already know this, it would only increase our carbon dependency and water usage.

# ¿ Jun 10, 2016 21:43

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

ReidRansom posted:

Er.... yes, I suppose.

But hey, I don't advocate making everything like that. Neither do I begrudge someone offering consumers that choice should there be demand for it. Like, I'm not paying $200+ for a Bresse capon, but if there are people that will, gently caress it, let em.

That's the problem though: These people are arguing that their method of farming should be the only viable and acceptable version. So, yes, it is an issue.

Tuxedo Gin posted:

We don't need a perfectly efficient system, and we don't need to feed billions of people. People should not be living in places that can not sustain them. This goes to my argument: CA agribusiness is raping a drought stricken state to feed Chinese people. China has a shitload of land. De urbanization is the best thing for this planet. Too many people in areas that cannot support them leads to other areas being hurt.

Who shall live and who shall die? Get back to us and let us know

Tuxedo Gin posted:

Then, when middle America and California's central valley cannot sustain industrial levels of agriculture due to overexploitation of resources, what the gently caress do we do? Pray that technology has an answer, just like all the other climate change factors that we choose to ignore now because of convenience or greed.

e: Also, if people are so concerned about people starving all over the world, why the gently caress are we throwing away tons and tons of food, and bleaching dumpsters, every day?

Technology DOES have the answer in this case. And we're using it. Its the dense fucks that think we need to go backward that are praying for solutions to problems they are helping create.

Small. Farms. Are. Not. The. Answer. To. Climate. Change.

They will ONLY exasperate the problem.

# ¿ Jun 10, 2016 22:04

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

Tuxedo Gin posted:

Do you have sources, Mr. Unsourced opinions? Cause here's some that say you are wrong. Local food is demonstrably better for the environment than globally transported industrialized ag products:

http://css.snre.umich.edu/css_doc/CSS09-05.pdf

Your own sources show that small vehicle emissions are a larger impact overall that agriculture and transportation. Hm.

Tuxedo Gin posted:

http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2012/09/04/how-green-is-local-food/

quote:

So while buying local food could reduce the average consumer�s greenhouse gas emissions by 4-5 percent at best, substituting part of one day a week�s worth of calories from red meat and dairy products with chicken, fish, eggs, or vegetables achieves more greenhouse gas reduction than switching to a diet based entirely on locally produced food (which would be impossible anyway). Eating foods that are in season and eating organic and less processed foods can further reduce one�s greenhouse gas emissions.

Their study did not say that the impact of local farming was actually going to significantly decrease agriculture emissions, because local farming would not replace the amount of food they produce.

Tuxedo Gin posted:

Yeah, you guys seem to think that we are arguing for a return to agrarian lifestyles, which we have never done. Nobody is saying abolish industrial ag. Just tone it down a bit.

The majority of what you want, produce wise, is available from local farms. Do that when you can. I've said that already.

You honest to god made the argument that we should not support the population we have. Unless you were being sarcastic, I think the burden is on you to demonstrate why people should have to perish to support your goals.

# ¿ Jun 10, 2016 22:43

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

Tuxedo Gin posted:

Interesting that you deflect instead of giving up your sources. I'll stand by for whatever google results you pull out of your rear end, I guess.

Small vehicle emissions are happening whether food is local or not. Even the one source I gave that you are talking about still stipulates that even considering that, local food use results in a 4-5% reduction in carbon footprint, more if the local farms use more sustainable practices than the industrial farms (many do).

People are going to die either way. We are trading one bandaid for another. Technology is not advancing fast enough to reverse climate change. Either we re-evaluate our urban make up (Keep core cities that can sustain themselves, otherwise have much, much smaller cities) or we stay the current path and down the like billions die anyway because we've overpopulated and reached too high a density in urban/suburban areas and industrial ag can no longer keep up. Obviously that's our choice, cause we're already doing it, but that doesn't make it the best choice.

A mixed local-industrial plan is best. We can continue industrial production on a reducing scale for emergencies, export, and and supplementing the system. The majority of people should be strongly encouraged to buy local every chance they get. That's my entire argument. Nobody has to die for this, it just requires a reevaluation of our relationship with food. Stop throwing it away, and you don't need strawberries in January.

We'll have bigger emissions hits by switching off coal and gas than we will switching off industrial agriculture that currently does feed our planet.

And yes, people will die for your plan. And what are suggesting is a major step backwards for agricultural capacity, and no, local farms are not going to make up the difference, as your own linked studies said. Your system basically sets us up, waiting for a single bad year to basically leave us dying from hunger that WON'T BE HANDLED BY THE LOCAL FARMS.

I'm glad you like purchasing from the local farmers market. Its not going to make ends meet.

# ¿ Jun 10, 2016 22:57

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

Tuxedo Gin posted:

Agricultural capacity is bullshit. We throw away tons and tons of perfectly good food every goddamn day. Agricultural capacity is currently too loving high. Wasted resources.

And what makes you think cutting back on capacity is going to cut back on consumer oriented waste?

"Hey guys, we've cut back on capacity, eat everything you have or starve"

Wonderful plan.

# ¿ Jun 10, 2016 23:01

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

Brannock posted:

Okay, I regret going back on my resolution to not address you anymore. Local farms are supplementary, not a total replacement. Local farms are incredibly useful because they can help absorb ecological and economic shocks to the industrial system. You are responding to him as if he's advocating for an extreme position that exists mostly in your mind.

Brannock posted:

He made the argument that, ideally, we shouldn't be supporting huge populations in places like Saudi Arabia and the American Southwest desert. That we still got huge populations there is an example of wildly inefficient market capitalism that allowed its purchasing power to be distorted to the extent that it's actually "profitable" to ship resources there to be pissed into the sand.

These places should not have happened. He is not advocating that we march out and guillotine every citizen living in these places. Perhaps, and here I venture into speculation, he is advocating a slow over-time reduction in population there with encouragement for its citizens to move to other areas less resource-expensive and more habitable to human life.

Tuxedo Gin posted:

We don't need a perfectly efficient system, and we don't need to feed billions of people. People should not be living in places that can not sustain them. This goes to my argument: CA agribusiness is raping a drought stricken state to feed Chinese people. China has a shitload of land. De urbanization is the best thing for this planet. Too many people in areas that cannot support them leads to other areas being hurt. Then, when middle America and California's central valley cannot sustain industrial levels of agriculture due to overexploitation of resources, what the gently caress do we do? Pray that technology has an answer, just like all the other climate change factors that we choose to ignore now because of convenience or greed.

e: Also, if people are so concerned about people starving all over the world, why the gently caress are we throwing away tons and tons of food, and bleaching dumpsters, every day?

Awaiting on both your plans on how to mass emigrate these people and also resolve the massive agricultural debt of Africa. Thanks in advance.

These places happened. These PEOPLE happened. What is your solution to them?

Tuxedo Gin posted:

Also, I'm still waiting for your sources on carbon footprint being smaller for industrial ag operations.

Or was your "stopping coal and oil would be better" a backpeddle on that?

Nope. Not a backpeddle. But a point that there are bigger issues the resolve prior to the systems that currently ensure the world is fed.

CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 23:10 on Jun 10, 2016

# ¿ Jun 10, 2016 23:08

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

Tuxedo Gin posted:

How does industrial agriculture feed the world? People in developing countries are loving starving. People in America are lacking access to food.

This highlights an issue with capitalism and for-profit driven economics, not farming in generally. The food is there, its denied to people on the basis of economic merit, not on lack of availability. Were you not the one that highlighted food waste as a significant weight on food availability? Maybe solving that would go further than shifting to small farms?

Don't make Norman Bourlag cry. GMOs have done far more for farming and in decreasing carbon footprint than small farms will.

CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 23:22 on Jun 10, 2016

# ¿ Jun 10, 2016 23:19

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

ghetto wormhole posted:

Does anyone else find it weird that Tuxedo Gin has described large scale farming as "raping" like a dozen times in less than two pages?

I'm still enjoying their condemning anyone in the Middle East for living in places not conducive to farming.

And appeals to 'Organic'

# ¿ Jun 11, 2016 02:06

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

Tuxedo Gin posted:

You're illiterate, right? Cause nobody has loving said that. But, continue to take pieces of our arguments out of context while ignoring the larger argument in order to prove your point which you refuse to back up with any facts.

OP was citing a loving farmer appealing to 'faith' as a guide for his farming practices.

And again, both you and him DID say that, apparently, people in inhospitable places deserve lack of access to exported food because 'They shouldn't be living there'. As if they have some loving choice.

But yeah, I'm taking it out of context.

# ¿ Jun 11, 2016 02:15

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

computer parts posted:

Your sources do not dispute it.

I've already told him that, he raged.

# ¿ Jun 11, 2016 03:21

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

Tuxedo Gin posted:

Well I'm sorry about your reading comprehension skills. The Columbia article I posted on the last page discusses it. As I did in my own post from my own experience being a local farmer and being surrounded by small local farms.

Small farms are more likely to adopt practices that limit negative environmental impacts. We use less water and spray less chemicals. Our produce has a smaller carbon footprint than large agribusinesses.

Their data supports large farming. No, you don't produce a smaller carbon footprint. You're own sources highlighted as much.

Mass transportation and packaging of product REDUCES the footprint because a single vehicle is used to transport it to market versus the mass collection of MULTIPLE people going to the farmers market to acquire it.

And your anecdotes don't count.

Tuxedo Gin posted:

No you didn't. You handwaved and said it was irrelevant because oil and coal are more damaging than industrial farming.

And continued to refuse to post sources that support your argument.

Your own sources support our argument and you're now appealing to anecdotes to support your claims. Cmon now

# ¿ Jun 11, 2016 03:27

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

Tuxedo Gin posted:

You can't read. It says that even despite the savings by mass collection, local production results in a 4-5% decrease in carbon emissions.

But hey, keep not reading and railing on without posting facts to support your claims. You've not posted anything except your opinion.

Let's see:

The carbon footprint of a single large farm producing mass amounts of GMO product (which use LESS pesticides and herbicides and can use less water, and require less tractors) or hundreds of small farms, each following 'Organic' principles using far more toxic herbicides and pesticides and requiring more water, not to mention the larger impact of each farm having its own set of tractors and transportation.

Yeah, 4-5% is insignificant because you are asking to scale up on thousands of small farms. I sincerely doubt that 5% is going to stand up to expanding your scenario, I'm willing to bet it would wipe out any carbon gains.

Tuxedo Gin posted:

I'm done engaging. No wonder the OP fled.

You won, but not by proving your point. You won by endlessly arguing your opinion with no support other than more of your opinions.

The OP was citing a Bible bashing redneck that was using faith to guide his God granted principles of farming. Holy poo poo.

# ¿ Jun 11, 2016 03:34

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

Tias posted:

I live in a well developed farming nation (Denmark), and it's my clear impression that organic tastes better and doesn't contain herbicides that are toxic to humans - but itt a lot of respected posters claim the label is bullshit?

Am I being a dumb, or is organic just not regulated in the United States?

Most certified and regulated Organic pesticides and herbicides are MORE toxic:

quote:

Just last year, nearly half of the pesticides that are currently approved for use by organic farmers in Europe failed to pass the European Union's safety evaluation that is required by law 5. Among the chemicals failing the test was rotenone, as it had yet to be banned in Europe. Furthermore, just over 1% of organic foodstuffs produced in 2007 and tested by the European Food Safety Authority were found to contain pesticide levels above the legal maximum levels - and these are of pesticides that are not organic 6. Similarly, when Consumer Reports purchased a thousand pounds of tomatoes, peaches, green bell peppers, and apples in five cities and tested them for more than 300 synthetic pesticides, they found traces of them in 25% of the organically-labeled foods, but between all of the organic and non-organic foods tested, only one sample of each exceeded the federal limits8.

quote:

Yet organic proponents refuse to even give GMOs a chance, even to the point of hypocrisy. For example, organic farmers apply Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) toxin (a small insecticidal protein from soil bacteria) unabashedly across their crops every year, as they have for decades. It's one of the most widely used organic pesticides by organic farmers. Yet when genetic engineering is used to place the gene encoding the Bt toxin into a plant's genome, the resulting GM plants are vilified by the very people willing to liberally spray the exact same toxin that the gene encodes for over the exact same species of plant. Ecologically, the GMO is a far better solution, as it reduces the amount of toxin being used and thus leeching into the surrounding landscape and waterways. Other GMOs have similar goals, like making food plants flood-tolerant so occasional flooding can replace herbicide use as a means of killing weeds. If the goal is protect the environment, why not incorporate the newest technologies which help us do so?

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...al-agriculture/

https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4166

CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 15:33 on Jun 13, 2016

# ¿ Jun 13, 2016 15:26

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

Stinky_Pete posted:

Anecdotally (in the U.S.), I've noticed that organic Fuji apples taste better. Nothing stands out to me about the rest. I usually just buy the first of whatever I need that I see at the store.

No argument on taste, its hard to objectively measure taste.

# ¿ Jun 13, 2016 16:19

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

Its all GMOs anyways. Silly people not understanding artificial selection.

# ¿ Jun 13, 2016 19:25

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

KiteAuraan posted:

Hey, it's just not natural to insert the DNA from one species into another, never mind that tons of species already share DNA due to common ancestry.

That's the best part. People panicking when they change a SINGLE allele and don't realize they have at least a quarter of their DNA in common with their food to begin with...

Apparently if we change a single gene, it'll turn into some evil fish-strawberry hybrid. WHAT HAS SCIENCE DONE?!

# ¿ Jun 13, 2016 19:28

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

Yeah, diesels are incredibly efficient machines for moving things.

# ¿ Jun 14, 2016 16:34

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

Stinky_Pete posted:

Oh yeah I wonder how expensive it'll be to retrofit them with the ability to use some other liquid fuel that we hopefully figure out

For ship engines, theoretically they can burn anything that is remotely similar to heavy oil.

The fuel oil used in ship oil is basically like tar, its the leftovers from refining. They have to heat the fuel to keep it liquid in order to use it, otherwise it turns into a tarry goo.

Most diesel can be retrofitted to run an abundance of alternative fuels, most road going diesels can burn veggie/waste oil or a variety of canola/cooking oils.

# ¿ Jun 14, 2016 16:40

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

H.P. Hovercraft posted:

a popular vegetable oil conversion are diesel mercedes from the 70s and 80s since they're a really cheap way to get a nice luxury french fry car

Yes, the main issue is most people who do this fail to filter the oil properly. Running straight veggie oil involves adding heaters and extra filtration.

Quandary posted:

How difficult it be to run on ships on LNG?

Would need to change their entire motor at most, change the entire fuel injection system and lower compression at best. LNG burns more like gasoline and requires the motor to be setup more like a gas engine. You'd also have to change out the fuel storage, since LNG needs pressure tanks versus bunker style tanks. Its really not feasible nor worthwhile to convert current ships in service to LNG

That and losing the high compression ignition would also do away with their fuel efficiency and probably lower their power output. High compression in a compression ignition motor is part of why they are so efficient.

CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 18:37 on Jun 14, 2016

# ¿ Jun 14, 2016 18:34

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

BrandorKP posted:

Slow speed diesels with attached waste heat boilers were the most fuel efficient propulsion cycles for quite a long time. Recently Co-gas (gas turbines combined with waste heat boilers) became more efficient. But slow speed diesels are usually direct drive. They don't have or need a reduction gear. This is one of the reasons they started to displace steam plants during WWII. Later fuel costs killed steam.

And some slow speeds can be converted to LNG, because they were designed for the possibility. It was starting to be a thing for a little bit, but with fuel prices as they are now that trend died out.

Me, I'm all for returning interesting Nuclear powered cargo ships. In fact, there is renewed interesting in ships like the NS Savannah, with oil prices climbing again, the operating cost of a nuclear fueled ship is actually not much different from that of its petroleum fueled brethren

CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 14:00 on Jun 15, 2016

# ¿ Jun 15, 2016 13:56

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 14, 2024 22:18

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

golden bubble posted:

But nuclear powered naval ships only work because Admiral Hyman G. Rickover embed strict safety standards into the heart of the US Navy nuclear fleet. I'm not sure I'd trust commercial shipping companies to avoid cutting corners on maintenance and safety.

Simple solution: Make maintenance and upkeep of the reactors a Government issue, where ships must be inspected and an inspector must be on board at all times.

# ¿ Jun 15, 2016 16:28

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > What is to be grown? (Agribusiness, Organic, Local Farming Discussion)