Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Perennial rice: Plant once, harvest again and again

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 296 posts

Re: Perennial rice: Plant once, harvest again and again

#151

Post by robocat »

gregwebs wrote: post #137
Aromasin wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To put this into context, animal agriculture is responsible for 18% of the worlds CO2 emissions, uses 83% of the world's farmland, but only produces 18% of our calories and 37% of our protein.

A lot of grazing is done on marginal farming land. For example land that is very dry or land that is very steep. So generally a statistic like 83% of the world's farmland doesn't make any sense. Not sure if it is possible to count factory farming properly- that takes really good farmland and sends the production to animals.

> A lot of grazing is done on marginal farming land.

For example, New Zealand: ~55% is being used for sheep and cattle, and only ~2% of NZ is arable (see https://youtu.be/F_g6-4swJ_s at 14:45) with a major part of the reason why explained near the 10:00 mark (weather in South Island).

Re: Perennial rice: Plant once, harvest again and again

#152

Post by scns »

wolfgangK wrote: post #139
Aromasin wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To put this into context, animal agriculture is responsible for 18% of the worlds CO2 emissions, uses 83% of the world's farmland, but only produces 18% of our calories and 37% of our protein.

I really wish there was a name (that I knew of) for this logical fallacy of using precise quantities of meaninglessly confused categories. What do you think "farmland" is ? Our ancestors who knew how to raise cattle and farm cereals for millennia were surviving on the verge of starvation : why do you think that was ? Were they so dumb they'd rather die of hunger than convert some of their grazing pastures to cereal a…

> a pound of soy protein won't have the same effect on your body as a pound of meat proteins.

True. Eating meat will raise your inflammation markers by 70%.

> nutrients and their bio availability (e.g. iron and B12)

Fe3 from animal sources has a better uptake by the body. Fe2 from plants is good enough if you combine it with Vitamin C. Parsley contains both.

Animals in conventional agriculture have to be fed B12, for them to stay healthy and their meat to contain any. The B12 producing bacteria in the soil get killed by pesticides.

The 83% of farmland which is used to feed and raise animals taken together is the size of Africa.

Source: Game Changers, the movie [0]. Highly recommended, stopped cooking wirh organic meat, i take B12 directly instead. If someone else cooks for me, i still eat meat and enjoy it. Knowing full well that it damages my body, like alcohol and sugar. Completly banning fun sounds awful.

Re: Perennial rice: Plant once, harvest again and again

#153

Post by scns »

gregwebs wrote: post #137
Aromasin wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To put this into context, animal agriculture is responsible for 18% of the worlds CO2 emissions, uses 83% of the world's farmland, but only produces 18% of our calories and 37% of our protein.

A lot of grazing is done on marginal farming land. For example land that is very dry or land that is very steep. So generally a statistic like 83% of the world's farmland doesn't make any sense. Not sure if it is possible to count factory farming properly- that takes really good farmland and sends the production to animals.

By goat and sheep, not cattle.

Re: Perennial rice: Plant once, harvest again and again

#154

Post by pseudostem »

mataug wrote: post #81
twawaaay wrote: post #33

I know Chinese harvest their rice up to three times a year. I don't see how perennial rice could compete. Harvesting normal rice is just grabbing entire plants, as many as you can grab at a time. I may know nothing about how harvesting perennial rice is supposed to work, but I grew up as a farmer and I have imagination. You have to leave some part of the plant for it to keep growing crop which means you can't just gr…

In many parts of the world, planting rice is as labor intensive as harvesting it. If planting rice is no longer labor intensive, wouldn't harvesting be able to attract the labor needed ?

I have some farming experience under my belt, zero with rice.

You have to look at labour as a function of season. If while planting, there are no competing jobs, but while harvesting, there are (or the other way around)... That would be your answer.

Re: Perennial rice: Plant once, harvest again and again

#155

Post by photochemsyn »

CrazyStat wrote: post #136
photochemsyn wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a bit overblown. The methane being emitted is sourced originally from atmospheric CO2 via photosynthesis, and while there is some anaerobic production of methane in rice paddies, the methane gets converted back to CO2 in the atmosphere with a half-life of 10-20 years IIRC. This is fundamentally different from natural gas emissions, in which carbon atoms are being transferred from stable geological reservoirs…

> and while there is some anaerobic production of methane in rice paddies, the methane gets converted back to CO2 in the atmosphere with a half-life of 10-20 years IIRC. Methane is a far, far worse greenhouse gas than CO2, even accounting for the fact that it eventually decays back to CO2.

Methane is something like 25 times as effective at absorbing outgoing infrared radiation in the Earth's atmosphere relative to carbon dioxide, but there is > 200 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere as methane (1.9 ppm vs 420 ppm).

https://www.noaa.gov/news-release/increase-in-atmospheric-me...

So the net effect of all the methane is about 50 ppm. About 30% comes from fossil fuels. This leaves a big burp relative to preindustrial levels (comparable to 20 ppm CO2), likely from the expansion of human agriculture, more cows, maybe forest removal.

We're locked into it now due to permafrost melt and increased rainfall in to the tropical belt, swapping out one strain of rice for another will have marginal effects at best.

> "NOAA scientists are concerned that the increase in biological methane may be the first signal of a feedback loop caused in part by more rain over tropical wetlands that would largely be beyond humans’ ability to control."

The tipping point has come and gone, we're heading for the Pliocene. Plan accordingly.

Re: Perennial rice: Plant once, harvest again and again

#157

Post by Retric »

matthewdgreen wrote: post #55
xyzzyz wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So, perennial rice may end up reduce GHG emissions substantially. Not really. These GHG emissions from rice are in steady state with the amount of CO2 and methane in the atmosphere. They do not add additional GHG to the atmosphere the way burning fossil fuel do. When you burn fossil fuels, the carbon atoms released into atmosphere have been captured from the atmosphere millions years ago. When weeds and other organ…

Methane and CO2 are very different things. The former has a massively greater warming effect than the latter, and takes long enough to degrade in the atmosphere that it can significantly affect warming times. If you aren’t paying attention to the rising methane levels in our atmosphere (and possible evidence of a feedback loop) with serious trepidation, you’re a lucky person who probably sleeps well at night.

That’s very misleading because Methane is extremely front loaded in its effects. Year 0 is very bad year 50 is only equal to the amount of carbon in that methane. As rice farming is very consistent year to year, and rice removes carbon as it grows the net effect on future warming is ~zero because all the previous years have already been baked in to current conditions.

The great news is reducing Methane from existing sources is one of the fastest ways to reverse climate change after we reach net zero.

Re: Perennial rice: Plant once, harvest again and again

#158

Post by Retric »

lettergram wrote: post #117
matthewdgreen wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Methane and CO2 are very different things. The former has a massively greater warming effect than the latter, and takes long enough to degrade in the atmosphere that it can significantly affect warming times. If you aren’t paying attention to the rising methane levels in our atmosphere (and possible evidence of a feedback loop) with serious trepidation, you’re a lucky person who probably sleeps well at night.

I want a warmer atmosphere. All the UN data points to a warmer atmosphere equating to more food and higher quality of life. I concede some concern about potential feedback loops, but the reality is that earth was and still is in an ice age. Ice ages are not the norm on earth, I think it’s okay if we exit an ice age. Yes things will change, but it’ll be over decades to millennia. We’re working on carbon capture right…

That was actually part of early models of climate change, but we’ve already crossed the point where the negatives from increased CO2 outweigh the positives.

The problem is there are just so many small negatives such as extremely warm weather negatively impacting plant growth. But also less talked about problems like the increase in outdoor CO2 requiring more building ventilation to avoid indoor CO2 levels from giving people headaches. That’s right, global warming actually makes meetings inside air conditioned buildings worse.

Re: Perennial rice: Plant once, harvest again and again

#159

Post by ClumsyPilot »

lettergram wrote: post #117
matthewdgreen wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Methane and CO2 are very different things. The former has a massively greater warming effect than the latter, and takes long enough to degrade in the atmosphere that it can significantly affect warming times. If you aren’t paying attention to the rising methane levels in our atmosphere (and possible evidence of a feedback loop) with serious trepidation, you’re a lucky person who probably sleeps well at night.

I want a warmer atmosphere. All the UN data points to a warmer atmosphere equating to more food and higher quality of life. I concede some concern about potential feedback loops, but the reality is that earth was and still is in an ice age. Ice ages are not the norm on earth, I think it’s okay if we exit an ice age. Yes things will change, but it’ll be over decades to millennia. We’re working on carbon capture right…

> All the UN data points to a warmer atmosphere equating to more food and higher quality of life

All data point to countries warmer than Spain having significant drops in life expectancy. Human body is less healthy in a tropical climate than it is in continental climate.

A numbwr of cities will exceed 36 degrees C Wet Bulb Temperature in the summmer. Do you understand what that means? Over heating to death. Sweating does not work any more.

Everyone living in those areas will become refugees.

We are also losing all snowpack. No snowpack means droughts in summer and floods in winter.

Lastly, we expect climate change to cause food shortages. It will not bw just poor countries that suffer. Nations will respond by banning food exports. Britain depends on imported food, it has not been self-sufficient for 100 years

We have no crops that handle high heat well. We neber domesticated perrenial plants properly, they give much lower yields. Perrenial wheatgrass has half the yoeld of wheat.

Potato planta shut down in high heat even if you provide them with water. You can turn the entire field i to soup, at 40 degrees potatoss don't grow.

It is sad that most people do not comprehens the huge cost we will have to deal with this problem.

Re: Perennial rice: Plant once, harvest again and again

#160

Post by fwip »

xyzzyz wrote: post #111
billiam wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>our climate would be back to 2010, which is hardy a significant change. Uh, no. It is quite significant, and a mountain of evidence says that the climate changes from concentrations in the last decade are very significant. You appear to be a denier of anthropogenic climate change who is willing to make silly straw men arguments.

I do happen to remember what the climate looked like in 2010, and I very much do not believe that enormous social and economic projects are warranted to revert the state of climate by 10 years. > You appear to be a denier of anthropogenic climate change who is willing to make silly straw men arguments. You appear to be unable to discuss the issue on merits, but this doesn’t necessitate resorting to ad hominem. You ca…

Actually describing the beliefs that you hold is not an ad hominem.

You, however, are claiming that they are unable to discuss the issue - that is.

Post reply on HN