(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?
