Where does the energy required for the tree to produce that fruit come from?
(I humbly put myself forward as a walking encyclopedia on production methodologies from pole to pole - if the subject interests you and you want to bounce ideas off of someone - but if you want I can link some production manuals for any crop you like, so we have something in common to discuss beyond the theoretical or general)

Some food also consists of the things animals produce- which we explicitly keep them alive- to secure. Diary, eggs, etc. There are other useful byproducts, obviously. Importantly those that tie in with ag.

As a fun aside, when we call bullshit on something - we're describing it;s worthlessness. But why? One possible reason. Bulls (impressive) peckers throw the useful nutrients in the mixture away from the solid strata that binds it and makes it useful to us. The females have no such equipment, and thus their droppings are loaded. Cow shit is gold - bull shit is worthless.

(July 5, 2014 at 12:38 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Where does the energy required for the tree to produce that fruit come from?

Mostly from the sun, and partly from last year's fruit in some cases.

But I'm not sure what you're up to. Either this is the world's biggest red herring, or you're patiently setting up an important point. I know you're a clever person, so right now, I'm just waiting for the other shoe to drop.

Patiently setting up an important point. Of course. Before I gut you like a fish - boy.

Quote:Mostly from the sun

So, anything that occludes the sunlight, and anything that lives in an environment that occludes sunlight - has to gtfo, right from the start. Cute woodland creatures, for example. Lets start a death toll on this note. I'll let you make the estimates.

Quote:and partly from last year's fruit in some cases

Even "partly" would be a generous exaggeration in favor of the value of rotting fruit to a living tree. If such were even remotely true than fruit trees would be as close to a perpetual energy machine as could be reasonably imagined. Obviously, they aren't. Rotting fruit is an exceedingly minor contributor to overall nutrient availability but the number one contributor to fungal and viral disease. Where else might we get the necessary substances to promote tissue growth in a plant?

The two questions are related, of course, because plants use that solar energy to do work - and that's what we're looking at currently to get a better estimate of the total animal death toll in the face of ag.

(July 5, 2014 at 7:41 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Patiently setting up an important point. Of course. Before I gut you like a fish - boy.

I prefer to be diced like a tomato, thank you very much.


re: Bambi
You are still implying lots and saying too little. I don't think it is our goal to maximize the use of the sun's energy, but to provide enough calories to keep the current population comfortably sustained. I think we can do this without interfering more than we already have with ecosystems. We don't need to worry about wether Bambi is preventing some sunlight from reaching our plants.

(July 6, 2014 at 8:28 am)bennyboy Wrote: You are still implying lots and saying too little. I don't think it is our goal to maximize the use of the sun's energy, but to provide enough calories to keep the current population comfortably sustained.

It -is- the goal of the farmer and of the plant, if plants can be said to have goals. If you don't have adequate sunlight, you don't put veggies in the ground (available sunlight is, in point of fact - the very first and most important requirement when determining whether or not -to ag-...all the rest is pointless unless you can ensure that requirement is met). It would be a waste, environmentally and monetarily. Once you put crops in the ground you absolutely must maximize the efficiency of the system (that's where the profits and the food come from). Vegetables are perfectly content producing inedible or unmarketable fruits in the absence of overall system efficiency, particularly so in the absence of adequate sunlight. Or, to put that another way, the cabbage doesn't need as much sunlight to go through it's life cycle as it does to produce the food we're planting it for in the first place. Wooded lots make much better livestock production areas. Animals like shade as much as we do, even if vegetables, generally, don't. On the subject of calories, I'll simply say that not all calories are created equal - and more sunlight does translate into more calories. Maximizing the use of energy (and other requirements) is, to my mind, the -only- way to provide those calories sustainably. I insist on efficiency in food production to the same measure and for the same reasons as efficiency in any other manufacturing process. That's why the trees needed to go in the first place. I'm not going to waste the seeds, the water,the nutrients, or the labor trying to grow corn in the shade, and neither should anyone else.

Of course, we can shore up the sunlight requirement by giving them a more concentrated dose of nutrients - but that only goes so far - and constitutes what some might call runoff, or pollution. Would you prefer that I advocate for runoff or maximizing the use of the suns energy? Unfortunately, our choices here are constrained by biology.

Quote: I think we can do this without interfering more than we already have with ecosystems. We don't need to worry about wether Bambi is preventing some sunlight from reaching our plants.

Producers worry about anything that impacts their yield, and they should. But I'm curious, how do you propose that we feed everyone without interfering further - we've only managed to feed some...with all the interference we've already caused. Interference isn't a flaw in the system, it's a feature. The whole point of agriculture is to create a non-natural environment. It's not as if removing the trees once suffices anyway. Keeping nature out of the garden is a constant battle. We didn't just cut all the forests down once (so that one could say - we did enough, work with what we have) - we are continually preventing them from reestablishing - and we must, in some measure - if we are to grow food. If you're willing to sweep all the death involved in creating these little non-natural ecosystems under the rug then why should the deaths of some farm animals bother you in the least? The farm animals and the woodland creatures combined don't even begin to address the overall death toll of ag-as-currently-practiced combined, in any case. What's all this about if we're just going to wave that away?


-Of course I'm implying much and saying little. I think that a tiny bit of research into food production - the actual mechanics of it- is enough for anyone to reach the conclusions that I've reached (I also think that it's thrilling and surprising - coming from a position of ignorance with regards to food production - which is where moist people are at - even the producers, to see how this stuff works, and why it works). I also think that the things we figure out for ourselves mean more to us.

We get the nutrients from oil, by the by. Oil and phosphates. I left the estimates to you. So, add whatever number you feel comfortable with to the death toll we've already started (we'll be adding more, shortly). I assume that you don't feel that we ought to be doing this any more than I do? If that's the case, perhaps you could suggest some other place where we might find nutrients of similar quality and quantity?

If you're such a fan of efficiency, then why feed grain to animals? The animals must consume at least some of the calories in the grain in digesting, in moving around, in maintaining body temperature, etc. EVEN IF we are required to keep some areas clear for farming, as soon as you start feeding some of that produced food to cattle, you are setting yourself up for a double whammy. The only advantage of animals, in terms of calories, is that they can graze inedible foods, like grass, and produce edible foods, like T-bone steaks. If we stopped feeding grain to animals, and also reduced the "need" for animal calories consumed by people who are already overweight, we could save most cattle without increasing crop land. Yes, current crops are responsible for animal deaths, and I would prefer a solution to that. But unless you are suggesting REPLACING crop land with grazing land, this is moot to a discussion about vegetarian vs. non-vegetarian food production. So you are left arguing that the meat will provide such superior nutrition that it justifies the loss of efficiency-- an argument that is difficult given there are probably over a billion vegetarians living healthy lives.

re: non-natural environments
I'd say the human condition is non-natural, and that's the problem. We have a massive world population, only a very few percent of whom are required to work to provide themselves with sustenance. We are like bacteria that have filled up 90% of a petri dish-- we are beginning to choke on our own easy success. No amount of efficiency will long delay the inevitable if the total calorie requirements of our species keep growing exponentially.

An alternative
There's a possibility that grain crops are NOT very efficient converters of energy. I'd wager that seaweed, lichen, algae etc. do it better. Certainly, the oceans absorb very much of the sun's energy, and there is little maintenance required except to stop dumping waste (including waste from artificial crop fertilizers) into them. There are many advantages to be gotten by culturing and harvesting ocean-born crops.

(July 6, 2014 at 2:13 pm)bennyboy Wrote: If you're such a fan of efficiency, then why feed grain to animals?

Its an efficient way of processing nutrients that aren't available to us into nutrients that are. More efficient, than trying to chew and digest feedcorn yourself, that is. In my perfect world I wouldn't feed grain to cattle, but pigs and chickens (and fish) sure.

Quote: The animals must consume at least some of the calories in the grain in digesting, in moving around, in maintaining body temperature, etc. EVEN IF we are required to keep some areas clear for farming, as soon as you start feeding some of that produced food to cattle, you are setting yourself up for a double whammy. The only advantage of animals, in terms of calories, is that they can graze inedible foods, like grass, and produce edible foods, like T-bone steaks. So you are left arguing that the meat will provide such superior nutrition that it justifies the loss of efficiency.

Calories which would otherwise be lost anyway through a multitude of completely natural processes. Meat, I want to mention here, is a much more stable form of sequestration than plant tissue is. That's why it keeps better in the freezer.

Quote:There's also the possibility that grain crops are NOT very efficient converters of energy. I'd wager that seaweed, lichen, algae etc. do it better. Certainly, the oceans absorb very much of the sun's energy, and there is little maintenance required except to stop dumping waste (including waste from artificial crop fertilizers) into them.

Have you thought this through? Do you want to suggest, to a guy like me, that I might be better employed wreaking the sort of environmental havoc I've already wrought upon the land upon the seas and rivers as well? I'm highly susceptible to suggestion when it comes to food....lol.

Unfortunately for the oceans, they either do not store that energy in an available form, or when they do, that available form makes itself scarce in our presence. This is also why seaweed makes a great side-dressing on row crops, but can't be relied upon to form the basis of fertility. Their metabolism doesn't necessarily sequester the same substances that terrestrial plants might (or in the proper ratios). There are other important (practical) reasons why farming our oceans and waterways haven;t taken off, but I don;t want to wander too far afield.

Quote:re: non-natural environments
I'd say the human condition is non-natural, and that's the problem. We have a massive world population, only a very few percent of whom are required to work to provide themselves with sustenance. We are like bacteria that have filled up 90% of a petri dish-- we are beginning to choke on our own easy success.

If you think it's easy I invite you to spend a year working with me on any of the farms I've established or pimped. Look, I don;t agree with our current system anymore than you..but....we ought to at least make sure we've characterized a problem accurately if we hope to solve it?

Quote:If we stopped feeding grain to animals, and also reduced the "need" for animal calories consumed by people who are already overweight, we could save most cattle without increasing crop land. Yes, current crops are responsible for animal deaths, and I would prefer a solution to that. But unless you are suggesting REPLACING crop land with grazing land, this is moot to a discussion about vegetarian vs. non-vegetarian food production.

Save them for and from what? What would we do with all that excess grain? It's not fit for human consumption. I would suggest replacing some cropland with grazing land - and vv, yes. I would prefer a solution myself - but I'm suggesting that as far as we know, one doesn't exist (and further, that we understand why we may never find one).

(July 6, 2014 at 2:27 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Calories which would otherwise be lost anyway through a multitude of completely natural processes. Meat, I want to mention here, is a much more stable form of sequestration than plant tissue is. That's why it keeps better in the freezer.

Yes. Storage and transportation of meat is an advantage.

Quote:Have you thought this through? Do you want to suggest, to a guy like me, that I might be better employed wreaking the sort of environmental havoc I've already wrought upon the land upon the seas and rivers as well? I'm highly susceptible to suggestion when it comes to food....lol.

It's hard to anticipate what any process will look like when you scale it up to global food production size. However, if you look at algae, you're looking at an ultra-efficient energy converter.

Quote:Unfortunately for the oceans, they either do not store that energy in an available form, or when they do, that available form makes itself scarce in our presence. This is also why seaweed makes a great side-dressing on row crops, but can't be relied upon to form the basis of fertility. Their metabolism doesn't necessarily sequester the same substances that terrestrial plants might (or in the proper ratios).

There's no doubt that if we start messing with food production, we'll have to solve problems of nutrient distribution as well as that of calorie distribution. However, the fluid nature of the oceans means that you won't deplete nutrients in the same way that you would on land-locked farms

Quote:Save them for and from what? What would we do with all that excess grain? It's not fit for human consumption. I would suggest replacing some cropland with grazing land - and vv, yes. I would prefer a solution myself - but I'm suggesting that as far as we know, one doesn't exist (and further, that we understand why we may never find one).

Hmmmm. Why are we producing grains that aren't fit for human consumption? Could it be-- subsidies and tarriffs?

(July 6, 2014 at 2:38 pm)bennyboy Wrote: There's no doubt that if we start messing with food production, we'll have to solve problems of nutrient distribution as well as that of calorie distribution. However, the fluid nature of the oceans means that you won't deplete nutrients in the same way that you would on land-locked farms

Unfortunately, and for the very same reasons, we lose control of a system like that. We have to maintain control, because we don;t want to expend the resources to allow the ocean to -do what it does- it would have to -do what we want it to do-....before it's a viable place for ag. Open water fish farms are already grappling with this (unsuccessfully).

Quote:Hmmmm. Why are we producing grains that aren't fit for human consumption? Could it be-- subsidies and tarriffs?

Actually, no. We're producing grain that's unfit because we can, and because it's often the best or most economical use of the land. Our hard drive into grain since 1940 or so left us with a bunch of cultivars that are monstrous in terms of biological competitiveness and hardiness, but not so useful as food - until we feed it to livestock (possible use as a fuel source, but that has issues too..I don;t want to compete with my car for water directly).

(the subsidies and tariffs are now, largely, centered around post production applications - for which grain finds itself almost uniquely suitable. They're stable, just like meat.)

The rich people in power would just love us to all be vegan or vegetarian. Remember the Irish potato famine in the 1840s. We are seeing the start of people politicizing this issue of food production saying there is a moral issue with eating meat. Trying to sell us the idea. It's all bollocks . You can bet your life when the majority of ordinary people are eating quorn and synthetic crap the rich people will be eating meat . Oh yeah they won't go without.