Pages: 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 11

 

2011-06-15 01:28:44
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,813|6302|eXtreme to the maX

Shocking wrote:

You're going to need to attach extra facilities to each water purification system, ofcourse there's going to be an energy cost involved, doesn't mean it's not feasible as it's actually a very viable solution economically.
And the fertiliser which gets washed off the fields straight into the sea?
Uhh, collecting excrement of an entire city and processing it to then use it on the land is very different from the traditional "throwing poop on the fields" method.
How so? Its only a small fraction of that used to produce the crops in the first place so I'm not sure what you're achieving.
Fuck Israel
2011-06-15 01:47:58
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6797|132 and Bush

Tampa council approves seasonal fertilizer ban
TAMPA - The ban on retailers selling fertilizer containing nitrogen or phosphorous begins Wednesday in Pinellas County. It will run through September, encompassing what is generally referred to as the 'rainy season.'

The intent of the ban is to protect the area's water. Proponents, like Phil Compton with the Sierra Club, say the nitrogen in the fertilizer is often washed away during thunderstorms typical during the summer months.

The nitrogen then runs off into rivers or the bay, creating an algae bloom. The nitrogen clouds the water, kills fish and adversely affects plant life.

A ban on the fertilizer containing nitrogen would protect the water and also ease up on the cost to the taxpayer of getting the nitrogen out of the water.

Homeowners are also not allowed to use the fertilizer with nitrogen during those months, and could face a fine if they are caught doing so.

On Thursday, the Tampa City Council will decide if they too want to have a ban on that type of fertilizer during the summer monthy
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2011-06-15 03:01:12
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6607|'Murka

Kmar wrote:

For fat cows (and fat people) feed them grain, corn and soy. This is what farmers do to increase profits. The end product is meat that is nutritionally inferior. Cows were meant to eat grass. Studies show that grass-fed beef (compared to corn-fed) is higher in important vitamins, minerals and the heart-healthy, anti-inflammatory fats.
http://www.foodmatters.tv/_webapp_46086 … s_to_Avoid
Exclusive diets of corn and other grains do lead to that, no doubt. Not arguing that point (see previous post regarding timing of diet). It's an "all things in moderation" issue, isn't it? A balancing act for the farmers to maximize quantity and quality of their product.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2011-06-15 03:02:19
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6797|132 and Bush

Twas directed more at the people in this thread who've been suggesting it's all bullshit.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2011-06-15 03:17:10
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|7006|Nårvei

FEOS wrote:

Kmar wrote:

For fat cows (and fat people) feed them grain, corn and soy. This is what farmers do to increase profits. The end product is meat that is nutritionally inferior. Cows were meant to eat grass. Studies show that grass-fed beef (compared to corn-fed) is higher in important vitamins, minerals and the heart-healthy, anti-inflammatory fats.
http://www.foodmatters.tv/_webapp_46086 … s_to_Avoid
Exclusive diets of corn and other grains do lead to that, no doubt. Not arguing that point (see previous post regarding timing of diet). It's an "all things in moderation" issue, isn't it? A balancing act for the farmers to maximize quantity and quality of their product.
That's kinda the problem, you can't maximize both quantity and quality ... not without certain problems ... hence the idiological pathology, solve one problem while creating a new one that is worse in the long term than the problem you solved ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
2011-06-15 03:18:31
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6607|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Varegg wrote:

That's right ... cows are not meant to eat corn but rather grass etc ... and grass eating cows are much less likely to transfer E.Coli bacteria over to humans, a significant difference ...
Cows are herbivores, and corn falls in that category. The problem lies when we start diverting corn from feed stock to ethanol production (then there's subsidies, which is a whole other issue)--it's massively inefficient as a fuel source. The bottomline is that corn is a grain, no different than any other that is used to feed domesticated animals.
Growing food to feed to animals so they become food is grotesquely inefficient, and a huge source of greenhouse gases and wasted fossil fuels.

The problem really is diverting corn from food to become animal food, not diverting it into ethanol....
Good Lord. You really don't know anything about ethanol production and its impact on the food markets...do you?

And yes, corn ethanol's net energy gain (NEG) is the lowest of the four most common sources of ethanol.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2011-06-15 03:19:57
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6607|'Murka

Varegg wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Kmar wrote:


http://www.foodmatters.tv/_webapp_46086 … s_to_Avoid
Exclusive diets of corn and other grains do lead to that, no doubt. Not arguing that point (see previous post regarding timing of diet). It's an "all things in moderation" issue, isn't it? A balancing act for the farmers to maximize quantity and quality of their product.
That's kinda the problem, you can't maximize both quantity and quality ... not without certain problems ... hence the idiological pathology, solve one problem while creating a new one that is worse in the long term than the problem you solved ...
Of course you can maximize them both. It simply takes skill and timing.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2011-06-15 03:20:56
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,813|6302|eXtreme to the maX
And what is the impact of diverting corn to beef?

If so much corn weren't currently diverted to the moronic practice of feeding corn to cows how much ethanol could be produced, without impacting the food market one jot?
Fuck Israel
2011-06-15 03:27:35
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6912

Dilbert_X wrote:

And what is the impact of diverting corn to beef?

If so much corn weren't currently diverted to the moronic practice of feeding corn to cows how much ethanol could be produced, without impacting the food market one jot?
none. the us gov subsidize corn productions and still pays farmers not to grow corn afaik.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2011-06-15 03:29:50
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,813|6302|eXtreme to the maX
Then how is there a problem using it for ethanol?

Not that I'm saying its a good thing, just that if farmers already grow too much corn and divert a substantial amount to beed production the food market disruption argument can't really fly.
Fuck Israel
2011-06-15 03:31:23
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,813|6302|eXtreme to the maX
Has the documentary on Boeing/Duocommon Aerostructures been shown elsewhere?
Never seen anything like that in my engineering career.
Fuck Israel
2011-06-15 03:31:39
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|6196|...

Dilbert_X wrote:

And the fertiliser which gets washed off the fields straight into the sea?
That's going to happen regardless if there are no preventive measures in place. What's your point? That people oughtta stop using fertilizer altogether? Not going to happen.


Dilbert_X wrote:

How so? Its only a small fraction of that used to produce the crops in the first place so I'm not sure what you're achieving.
Right now many components needed in fertilizer are dug out of the ground.
Use the purification systems and you have an infinite source of said components.

Wasn't hard to understand no?

Last edited by Shocking (2011-06-15 03:32:09)

inane little opines
2011-06-15 03:31:40
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6607|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

Then how is there a problem using it for ethanol?

Not that I'm saying its a good thing, just that if farmers already grow too much corn and divert a substantial amount to beed production the food market disruption argument can't really fly.
It's far less efficient to turn it into ethanol than it is to use it for animal food.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2011-06-15 03:34:14
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,813|6302|eXtreme to the maX

Shocking wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

And the fertiliser which gets washed off the fields straight into the sea?
That's going to happen regardless if there are no preventive measures in place. What's your point? That people oughtta stop using fertilizer altogether? Not going to happen.


Dilbert_X wrote:

How so? Its only a small fraction of that used to produce the crops in the first place so I'm not sure what you're achieving.
Right now many components needed in fertilizer are dug out of the ground.
Use the purification systems and you have an infinite source of said components.

Wasn't hard to understand no?
Maybe you should read what you've written.

If a even a small proportion of your phosphates get washed out to sea you hardly have an infinite source in sewage do you?

Even with a small wastage after a few cycles you're down to nothing.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-06-15 03:37:00)

Fuck Israel
2011-06-15 03:36:15
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,813|6302|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Then how is there a problem using it for ethanol?

Not that I'm saying its a good thing, just that if farmers already grow too much corn and divert a substantial amount to beed production the food market disruption argument can't really fly.
It's far less efficient to turn it into ethanol than it is to use it for animal food.
Explain how it is 'more efficient' to not produce fuel but instead feed animals when they and we would be better off if they ate grass?

Its for the convenience of farmers, and a handy dump for subsidised corn I reckon.
Fuck Israel
2011-06-15 03:39:54
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6607|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Then how is there a problem using it for ethanol?

Not that I'm saying its a good thing, just that if farmers already grow too much corn and divert a substantial amount to beed production the food market disruption argument can't really fly.
It's far less efficient to turn it into ethanol than it is to use it for animal food.
Explain how it is 'more efficient' to not produce fuel but instead feed animals when they and we would be better off if they ate grass?

Its for the convenience of farmers, and a handy dump for subsidised corn I reckon.
Don't get me wrong...I don't agree with subsidies in any form. But when you feed animals grain (such as corn) they grow faster, thus increasing production for the animal farmer. More animals produced per unit time = higher efficiency for him. So using the grain as a food source for the animal, which in turn becomes a food source for humans is fine, particularly since it takes so much longer/more land/money to produce the same animal on a non-grain enhanced diet.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2011-06-15 03:40:24
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|7006|Nårvei

FEOS wrote:

Varegg wrote:

FEOS wrote:


Exclusive diets of corn and other grains do lead to that, no doubt. Not arguing that point (see previous post regarding timing of diet). It's an "all things in moderation" issue, isn't it? A balancing act for the farmers to maximize quantity and quality of their product.
That's kinda the problem, you can't maximize both quantity and quality ... not without certain problems ... hence the idiological pathology, solve one problem while creating a new one that is worse in the long term than the problem you solved ...
Of course you can maximize them both. It simply takes skill and timing.
Ehr ... no you can't actually, you have to compromize one of them to achieve the other ... that's so basic I'm disapointed you of all should think otherwise ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
2011-06-15 03:40:43
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6797|132 and Bush

They've already banned certain types of fertilizer here in Tampa during the rainy season.

"TAMPA Beginning next spring, Tampa homeowners will have to find an alternative to nitrogen and phosphorus-based fertilizers to keep their lawns plush and green.

On Thursday, the city council voted to ban the sale and use of those fertilizers during the rainy season, from June 1 to Sept. 30. The restrictions – some of the toughest in the state – must pass a final vote on June 23 and won't go into effect until June 1, 2012."
http://www2.tbo.com/news/politics/2011/ … ar-234474/
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2011-06-15 03:41:05
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|6196|...

Dilbert_X wrote:

Maybe you should read what you've written.

If a even a small proportion of your phosphates get washed out to sea you hardly have an infinite source in sewage do you?

Even with a small wastage after a few cycles you're down to nothing.
What? I wasn't talking about recycling the fertilizer itself for phosphates.
inane little opines
2011-06-15 03:43:25
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6607|'Murka

Varegg wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Varegg wrote:


That's kinda the problem, you can't maximize both quantity and quality ... not without certain problems ... hence the idiological pathology, solve one problem while creating a new one that is worse in the long term than the problem you solved ...
Of course you can maximize them both. It simply takes skill and timing.
Ehr ... no you can't actually, you have to compromize one of them to achieve the other ... that's so basic I'm disapointed you of all should think otherwise ...
Of course you compromise on both, but you reach a point where both are maximized. Hence the balancing act I was referring to.

If all of our farmers did was put out Wagyu cattle (maximizing quality at the expense of quantity), nobody would ever eat any beef, and the cattle farmers would go out of business completely. It's just not scalable.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2011-06-15 03:43:48
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,813|6302|eXtreme to the maX

Shocking wrote:

What? I wasn't talking about recycling the fertilizer itself for phosphates.
As I understand it you're talking about reclaiming the phosphates from the sewage stream.

Explain how that gives you an infinite supply when a proportion of what you apply to crops gets washed out to sea, is discarded in stalks, husks and so on.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-06-15 03:45:21)

Fuck Israel
2011-06-15 03:44:50
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,813|6302|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:

Of course you compromise on both, but you reach a point where both are maximized.
I think you mean optimised relatively.
Fuck Israel
2011-06-15 03:48:03
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|6196|...

Dilbert_X wrote:

As I understand it you're talking about reclaiming the phosphates from the sewage stream.

Explain how that gives you an infinite supply when a proportion of what you apply to crops gets washed out to sea, is discarded in stalks, husks and so on.
Humans produce phosphates (and other nutrients used by plants), it's in our urine. That sewage.
inane little opines
2011-06-15 03:50:51
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,813|6302|eXtreme to the maX

Shocking wrote:

Humans produce phosphates (and other nutrients used by plants), it's in our urine. That sewage.
So we have magical process inside us which produces phosphorous from what, carbon?

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-06-15 03:55:27)

Fuck Israel
2011-06-15 03:51:03
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6607|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Of course you compromise on both, but you reach a point where both are maximized.
I think you mean optimised relatively.
It means the same thing. And it would actually be "...optimized, or maximized, relative to one another."
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

 

Pages: 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 11

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard