[QUOTE=roseymare;8667634]
You don’t understand subsidies.[/QUOTE]
I understand them perfectly:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fresh-fruit-hold-the-insulin/
[QUOTE=Silver Silence;8667615]
No kidding, this is why we all need to eat less meat. Bottom line, our planet is going to suffer so everyone can eat a cheap burger every day.[/QUOTE]
you also know that the way we raise plant crops in this country is very environmentally suspect, right!
Like growing lettuce in the arid climate of the south west…depleting the aquifers HEAVILY, along with all available surface waters, to the detriment of other habitats and ecosystems.
but it’s plants, so it’s ok, right!
Hydroponics system.
[QUOTE=Red Barn;8667653]
I understand them perfectly:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fresh-fruit-hold-the-insulin/[/QUOTE]
And this.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-truth-about-genetically-modified-food/
Please, please refer to Scientific American because I do believe mr. Pacelle’s new book is about to be plugged.
[QUOTE=RodeoFTW;8667660]
Hydroponics system.[/QUOTE]
There is a place for all of these ag systems. They all have plusses and minueses for the environment.
[QUOTE=skyon;8667664]
And this.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-truth-about-genetically-modified-food/
Please, please refer to Scientific American because I do believe mr. Pacelle’s new book is about to be plugged.[/QUOTE]My objections to GMO crops have exactly nothing to do with whether they’re safe to eat. Very few sensible people’s objections do.
Good try, though. 
[QUOTE=roseymare;8667673]
There is a place for all of these ag systems. They all have plusses and minueses for the environment.[/QUOTE]
Hydoponics is a self-sustaining system. There is literally no negative about it. Fish feed plants and plants feed fish. Minimal water waste (less than 5%). It is the best system for the world we live in if we are dealing with huge urban populations. Food can be grown in warehouses and people already keep chickens, gardens, and bee hives in their backyards and roof tops.
http://www.triplepundit.com/2013/12/future-sustainable-commercial-urban-agriculture-aquaponics/
[QUOTE=Red Barn;8667676]
^ My objections to GMO crops have exactly nothing to do with whether they’re safe to eat. Very few sensible people’s objections do.
Good try, though. ;)[/QUOTE]
I have no problem with your objections.
Just making it a point that Scientific American is the better source in researching facts on these discussions.
[QUOTE=RodeoFTW;8667677]
Hydoponics is a self-sustaining system. There is literally no negative about it. Fish feed plants and plants feed fish. Minimal water waste (less than 5%). It is the best system for the world we live in if we are dealing with huge urban populations. Food can be grown in warehouses and people already keep chickens, gardens, and bee hives in their backyards and roof tops.
Oh I am sure there are negatives.
Lighting would be the first to come to mind. Maybe also labor intensity.
[QUOTE=roseymare;8667688]
Oh I am sure there are negatives.[/QUOTE]
There isn’t. That’s what makes it self-sustaining.
Sorry I was editing my post to include lighting and labor requirements as negatives. Taste is a know one for sure.
[QUOTE=Alagirl;8667656]
you also know that the way we raise plant crops in this country is very environmentally suspect, right!
Like growing lettuce in the arid climate of the south west…depleting the aquifers HEAVILY, along with all available surface waters, to the detriment of other habitats and ecosystems.
but it’s plants, so it’s ok, right![/QUOTE]
LOL! OH. What nutrition do you survive on? We absolutely do not need to eat meat every day. I love a good steak or burger as much as the next person. We would be raising a heck of a lot less suspect plant crops, if we weren’t needing to feed so many animals for human consumption.
There is less beef raised than in the 70’s and 80’s. Why does everyone assume that those of us in beef production don’t recommend a moderate diet? Or support other agriculture endeavors?
I don’t know who you’re directing that at roseymare, but I never said that. I’m saying this is how it is, people eating three burgers a week is two burgers too many. There are less cattle being raised, but consumption has risen steadily since the 70s (until very recent years). More meat per cow is being utilized… which is great! … but I’m still heading back to that bottom line I mentioned earlier.
[QUOTE=roseymare;8667690]
Sorry I was editing my post to include lighting and labor requirements as negatives. Taste is a know one for sure.[/QUOTE]
Compared to the energy wasted on cattle prduction, it’s minimal.
Taste is only a problem if you don’t like eating fish.
You are just nitpicking.
[QUOTE=RodeoFTW;8667559]
Did you read the study?
People managed to not starve before intensive farming. A lot of countries that aren’t meat based have no problem doing it, either. Going to South East Asia, literally no one eats red meat for the majority of their meals and chicken/fish is the main protein in the diet, along with eggs. With the water wasted on feeding cattle, you could make aqua farms that go from fish to plant and back. Geography would no longer matter. At all.
I’m surprised you wouldn’t know about that.[/QUOTE]
I do know that. And to contend that geography has no meaning is to demonstrate a rather large gap in practical knowledge.
It also suggests a large gap in historical knowledge. China, a land of vast production and vast population, was once also a land of famine. Not because they could not always produce, even though that was often the case, but it’s also a land where surplus from Area A could not be transported to Area B where there was a deficit. Europe was no stranger to famine, either, for similar reasons. And what we are seeing today in Africa is not unique in their history. Geography is the bedrock of Agronomy.
G.
[QUOTE=Guilherme;8667843]
I do know that. And to contend that geography has no meaning is to demonstrate a rather large gap in practical knowledge.
It also suggests a large gap in historical knowledge. China, a land of vast production and vast population, was once also a land of famine. Not because they could not always produce, even though that was often the case, but it’s also a land where surplus from Area A could not be transported to Area B where there was a deficit. Europe was no stranger to famine, either, for similar reasons. And what we are seeing today in Africa is not unique in their history. Geography is the bedrock of Agronomy.
G.[/QUOTE]
Literally nothing you just posted had anything to do with what I was talking about.
Geography has nada to do with aquaponics, which can be built anywhere, regardless of terrain.
[QUOTE=Guilherme;8667843]
I do know that. And to contend that geography has no meaning is to demonstrate a rather large gap in practical knowledge.
It also suggests a large gap in historical knowledge. China, a land of vast production and vast population, was once also a land of famine. Not because they could not always produce, even though that was often the case, but it’s also a land where surplus from Area A could not be transported to Area B where there was a deficit. Europe was no stranger to famine, either, for similar reasons. And what we are seeing today in Africa is not unique in their history. Geography is the bedrock of Agronomy.
G.[/QUOTE]
All that’s quite interesting, but also entirely irrelevant to the topic.
The point here is that new and forward-looking technologies can be made sustainable and environmentally sound just as easily as they can be made environmentally catastrophic and economically perverse.
[QUOTE=Red Barn;8667891]
All that’s quite interesting, but also entirely irrelevant to the topic.
The point here is that new and forward-looking technologies can be made sustainable and environmentally sound just as easily as they can be made environmentally catastrophic and economically perverse.[/QUOTE]
I thought the topic was creepy stalker neighbour surveils guy she hates???
[QUOTE=RodeoFTW;8667884]
Literally nothing you just posted had anything to do with what I was talking about.
Geography has nada to do with aquaponics, which can be built anywhere, regardless of terrain.[/QUOTE]
Geography has everything to do with food production - highlighted in red. Transportation issues ARE part of food production. What good are all those fishies you are producing 1500 miles away if they cannot be transported?
[QUOTE=Guilherme;8667843]…Not because they could not always produce, even though that was often the case, but it’s also a land where surplus from Area A could not be transported to Area B where there was a deficit. Europe was no stranger to famine, either, for similar reasons. And what we are seeing today in Africa is not unique in their history. Geography is the bedrock of Agronomy.
G.[/QUOTE]
