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

281–290 of 296 posts

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

#281

Post by hansvm »

arghwhat wrote: post #230
AmericanChopper wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes, meat protein is a great source of nutrition. No, it is not magically better than equivalent vegetarian nutrition. It’s not magic, but the protein from animal sources is just scientifically better than protein from plant sources. If you want to compare the nutritional benefits of different protein sources you need to account for how bioavailable they are. Some plant sources aren’t bad, but none are as good as a…

Quoting your linked paper: > Vegetable proteins, when combined to provide for all of the essential amino acids, provide an excellent source for protein considering that they will likely result in a reduction in the intake of saturated fat and cholesterol. > [..] When the more accurate PDCAAS scale is used, soy protein was reported to be equivalent to animal protein with a score of 1.0, the highest possible rating (Ha…

Complete protein or not, you can get your sulfur-containing amino acids 32oz of tofu or 6oz of turkey (less of both if you're smaller), and other vegan sources are significantly worse, so a properly varied diet has higher demands. It's not impossible, but it's not as easy as just replacing all your animal proteins with equivalent masses of plant proteins either.

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

#282

Post by jholman »

Retric wrote: post #277
Timon3 wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Actually not so much, due to vastly increased agricultural output per acre the tendency is to have less acres under cultivation. Your source shows data for America between 2000 and 2022. Why do you think that is a good source for the topic at hand? > Further agriculture has also reduced quite a bit of methane production by draining swamps etc. So it’s difficult to do direct comparisons even just back in 1900. There…

> Why do you think that is a good source for the topic at hand? The obvious downward line even as population and farm output increased prove your argument was completely false. That’s as much as I care to prove. Do some damn research. > Am I understanding you correctly - you believe that temperature is like a pendulum, where after a period with increased greenhouse gases, it will somehow swing to be colder than it wo…

Yikes, you (singular) just got rather uncivil. Such a shame, as you (plural) were doing so well.

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

#283

Post by Timon3 »

Retric wrote: post #280
Timon3 wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I stay by that. On a climate scale, scaled-up rice production has started a short time ago - which is why I wrote my initial comment: looking at the climate right now and extrapolating that current rice farming has no impact on climate change is illogical.

There is no “long term climate scale.” Climate responds relatively quickly to changes.

Sorry, but what exactly are you arguing for? Of course you can view the climate at different time scales, and of course you can refer to those time scales by colloquial terms. Climate shows cyclic behavior at the time scales I was referring to: https://www.fs.usda.gov/ccrc/education/climate-primer/natura...

You could have asked for what I was referring to, but instead you chose to jump in with your definitions. Have you had conversational success with this approach?

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

#284

Post by Timon3 »

Retric wrote: post #277
Timon3 wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Actually not so much, due to vastly increased agricultural output per acre the tendency is to have less acres under cultivation. Your source shows data for America between 2000 and 2022. Why do you think that is a good source for the topic at hand? > Further agriculture has also reduced quite a bit of methane production by draining swamps etc. So it’s difficult to do direct comparisons even just back in 1900. There…

> Why do you think that is a good source for the topic at hand? The obvious downward line even as population and farm output increased prove your argument was completely false. That’s as much as I care to prove. Do some damn research. > Am I understanding you correctly - you believe that temperature is like a pendulum, where after a period with increased greenhouse gases, it will somehow swing to be colder than it wo…

> The obvious downward line even as population and farm output increased prove your argument was completely false. That’s as much as I care to prove. Do some damn research.

"The obvious downward line" is not relevant since it's for a time period that is only starting to affect todays climate. I was previously talking about time periods which would already be affecting the climate today. What if through the use of modern machinery and fertilizer the land use started trending down slightly in the 80s, and rose rapidly before then? We don't know, which is why your statistic is fully irrelevant to this discussion. I'm not interested in simplifying complex systems like historical agriculture to "line goes down now, line must have been going down before".

Maybe "do some damn research" that looks at the content in the context of the discussion.

> Hell no. I am saying if the level of greenhouse gasses drops there will be lag in the other direction. There’s nothing special about the direction of lag it’s simply a delay before equilibrium.

I really, really think you should try to re-read my previous comments. This doesn't make any sense. Let's play through it with numbers - maybe you'll show me I've been a complete idiot.

Let's define a starting point of greenhouse gases and temperature, both start at 0. We are in an equilibrium. Now we increase greenhouse gases to 1, and after some time temperature will also increase to 1 (arbitrary values). Then we decrease greenhouse gases to 0 (previous equilibrium). It will take some time until the temperature goes back to 0.

Referring back to the comment I was replying to: where do we get colder compared to a reference earth without increased gases?

That's my whole argument, it's what I've been writing the whole time. The increased greenhouse gases lead to a higher temperature, which will (until it goes back to equilibrium) be increased compared to if there was no increase in greenhouse gases, and it will stay increased for a while after greenhouse gases are at equilibrium.

What exactly are you arguing against? It seems you're taking stabs at whatever sentence you feel is incorrect, but I haven't seen a coherent argument.

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

#285

Post by 11235813213455 »

chris_va wrote: post #18

(disclaimer that I manage a climate group, but not a rice expert) They touch on, but don't get into the details on one of the more interesting aspects of perennial rice. Rice fields are actually a huge emitter of methane. Depending on the accounting, they contribute as much to global warming as the aviation sector. The fields emit methane when flooded, the stagnant water gets oxygen depleted, and the biomass in the s…

what about meat production? how does it compare to rice? This would be more relevant than comparing something completely avoidable (planes) with basic food

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

#286

Post by throwaway2037 »

contingencies wrote: post #267
throwaway2037 wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anywhere that is rich enough uses these rice planting machines. You see them frequently in Japan, Korea, Taiwan, etc.

I believe "flat" rather than "rich" is more of the limitation. Machines cost almost nothing in China, but the access or field topography very often makes them untenable.

    Machines cost almost nothing in China
Are you talking about the machines that can mechanize the planting of rice seedlings? I find it hard to believe that poor farmers in China can afford these machines, unless this state is providing for free, or with zero interest loans and very long repayment periods.

Also, most rice farming in China isn't done on difficult topography. I call that stereotype the "National Geographic" effect. If you look where most rice farming is done, it isn't very steep or mountainous. See more here: https://www.statista.com/statistics/242360/production-of-ric...

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

#287

Post by HelloMcFly »

AmericanChopper wrote: post #222
HelloMcFly wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That paper would suggest to me that perhaps eggs are as animal as we need to get. I agree with your specific point here, but it feels like a small thing when considering the overall societal and environmental cost of animal protein (esp. beef, pork, lamb).

If you tried to get all your calories from eating eggs, your diet would have too much fat and not enough carbs. In reality you need a balanced and varied diet, and the world couldn’t support 7 billion people all deciding to get their protein intake from one specific food item anyway. Animal products are simply better at providing the protein you need. You _can_ get all of it from plant based sources (I’m not sure whe…

I'm not arguing for some sort of protein gruel or standard diet; my comment wasn't advocating for "only eggs", just reacting to what you share.

I am stating that it seems inarguable to me that the benefits of meaningfully reducing or even eliminating animal consumption far outweigh the negatives (note: I'm not a vegetarian). The concerns about protein completeness are real, but they have to stand in the sunlight of the full picture, and when viewed that way it doesn't appear to be some unsolveable riddle.

So I'm not arguing the point, I'm arguing against the implicit takeaway that comments like yours can appear to make: that meaningfully reducing or eliminating animals from our diets isn't a goal worth pursuing.

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

#289

Post by Shocka1 »

scns wrote: post #152
wolfgangK wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

I'm going out on a limb here, but I would think that the average vegetarian is going to be much more health conscious than the person buying a steak and 24 pack of Bud Light every Friday. I haven't watched the doc - is this mentioned?

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

#290

Post by [deleted] »

Timon3 wrote: post #284
Retric wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why do you think that is a good source for the topic at hand? The obvious downward line even as population and farm output increased prove your argument was completely false. That’s as much as I care to prove. Do some damn research. > Am I understanding you correctly - you believe that temperature is like a pendulum, where after a period with increased greenhouse gases, it will somehow swing to be colder than it wo…

> The obvious downward line even as population and farm output increased prove your argument was completely false. That’s as much as I care to prove. Do some damn research. "The obvious downward line" is not relevant since it's for a time period that is only starting to affect todays climate. I was previously talking about time periods which would already be affecting the climate today. What if through the use of mod…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN