Live data from Hacker News

Perennial rice: Plant once, harvest again and again

npr.org

291–296 of 296 posts

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

#291
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…

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

I don’t consider someone being disingenuous as being civil in a discussion.

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

#292
post #284
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…

More complaining zero research, why I not surprised…

> where do we get colder compared to a reference earth without increased gases?

Wow. Suppose it’s fall and someone says “the days are getting colder.” Do you assume it’s in relation to some arbitrary point thousands of years ago or last month?

Context is often implied in the written word, and you seem to have issues following normal conventions. I don’t mean this as an insult, but there’s probably some adult education classes that you might find helpful.

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

#293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course your point a is true, but it doesn't need to be. In other parts of the world cattle are not fed on cereals at all, or minimally. Equally cereal production has been a major cause of native grassland being plowed up, with much of the biomass turning back into CO2. If it were turned back to pasture it would begin to sequester carbon again. Grazing animals could be grown on that pasture, but not at the intensit…

The problem is that most pasture is not natural; most of it was converted from forest at some point. In that way it is still an environmental tradeoff. Pasture doesn't really sequester carbon either, and grazing is still a big net GHG emitter because of methane (more potent than C02). Forest, on the other hand, sequesters carbon, produces oxygen, and creates microclimates that are more hospitable to humans and which…

Hang on a minute, 'most' pasture might not be natural, but no arable ground to grow the alternative food is natural at all! And even if 'most' pasture is not natural we should not ignore that significant pasture was natural. Lets take the Great Plains of North America as an example. Ploughing it up to turn it into arable land was not natural and released much carbon.

> Pasture doesn't really sequester carbon either

Simply untrue. In the UK if I had pasture land I could even get paid for the carbon I had added to the soil. Here is a nice quote that says the complete opposite of your unreferenced comment:

"Prairies have the ability to store as much carbon below the ground as forests can store above the ground. When carbon is stored below ground it will remain locked there and be unable to enter the atmosphere."

https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/ageconugensc/73/#:~:text=Prai....

I think you are making the same mistake as everyone else by pretending there is a simple solution. Special interest groups, like those who are dogmatically opposed to meat production, are twisting the science just as much as their opposition is.

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

#294
post #292
post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

More complaining zero research, why I not surprised… > where do we get colder compared to a reference earth without increased gases? Wow. Suppose it’s fall and someone says “the days are getting colder.” Do you assume it’s in relation to some arbitrary point thousands of years ago or last month? Context is often implied in the written word, and you seem to have issues following normal conventions. I don’t mean this a…

If you're not arguing for that, what exactly are you arguing for? What have I said that you disagree with? I've tried laying out my argument multiple times very clearly, but you're choosing to engage in ad-hominems instead. Seriously, what is that last paragraph, if not a giant insult?

I'm trying to have a normal and calm conversation. If you're not capable of responding in kind, don't respond. You're going on about how I'm not doing research, while you're not even responding to my criticism of your previosu statistic. Seriously, if you think that statistic had any value for this conversation: then yes, I'm fully incapable of doing what you consider research.

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

#295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Geograph…

China makes almost all of the world's EVs, the world's motors and the world's wheels. Putting together any kind of agricultural vehicle is cheaper in China than elsewhere. That's just how it is. How do I know this? I just returned from seven years making robots in China. I will stop short of looking them up and pricing them, but feel free to do so.

AFAIK the Agricultural Bank of China is the largest bank in the world by some measures. It almost certainly has the most branches, and these are overwhelmingly located in agricultural towns and villages. Recall also, in communism sharing equipment is normal. People don't all need to buy their own. Chinese villagers like villagers elsewhere help one another.

Yes, flat areas exist. But they are not the test area, Yunnan. And if you were to look at the historical spread of rice farming (a subject of considerable academic debate) you would notice that all academic suggestions of the earliest invention of rice agriculture itself, with very few exceptions, appear to disperse through or via the test area, because it is the natural headwaters of rivers feeding the majority of mainland East, Southeast and (very close by) South Asia, including the Yangtse, the Pearl River, the Red River, the Mekong, the Salween, the Irrawaddy, and the Brahmaputra. Given we know that in ancient times river valleys formed natural communications paths this give us a fair case for the general dispersion of rice farming technology specifically through steep terrain areas and specifically through the test area.

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

#296
post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Eating meat will raise your inflammation markers by 70%. Big claim. Can you provide a source for this? [Updated, if your source is a movie, is not a real source and is useless. People fly in the movies] In any case to avoid falling in a tunnel vision spot we would need a comparison with the effect of vegetable pesticides on inflammation markers also. We humans, eat meat since... forever in our history. After that i…

Watch it if you can, it has a lot more on offer. I ate meat before i saw it, since i need B12. Now i rarely do, usually when someone else cooked for me.
Post reply on HN