It's not that the third world countries are using "organic" methods. Organic production techniques are the "Modern" techniques of anywhere from 10 to 60 years ago. The fact that third world countries see increased yeild by updating from practices that are even older does not prove that organic production is better, or that it should even be acceptable in comparison to moder techniques.
When you compare modern techniques and organic techniques, modern actually comes out better for the environment, CO2 footprint, and virtually any other metric with the notable exception of "Ephemeral Smugness Factor" that rich morons get from purchasing anything with the "organic" label.
Search this page for some of my other posts for my arguments, as I'm tired of repeating myself.
If their seeds didn't bring improvements for the farmers, then they wouldn't buy their seeds! Therefore, Monsanto has to provide improvements for their customers inorder to earnt the improved bottom line their shareholders are looking for. I fail to see the reasoning behind the "Large Corporations are the DEVIL" meme that is so persistent here on slashdot.
If large corporations weren't able to sell their products, they wouldn't be able to remain large. No company can sell their products if there isn't at least some sort of demand for them. Farmers like Monsanto grain because it saves them both Time and Money, neither of which most farmers have in excess.
That roundup ready crops require no tilling, less fertlizer, less pesticide, and less diesel fuel, and are better for the environment in the long run should be PRAISED by the environmentalists on this site. However, because they are a big corporation, they don't get any positive credit for what they do, no matter who benefits.
P.S. And before you reply, I'm NOT, nor have I ever been an employee of Monsanto or any of it's subsidiaries. I have never personally benefited financially from them. I'm just an agriculturalist that can think for myself and decided that the rest of you are idiots.
FYI, organic production does allow for fertlizers and pesticides. They are limited to those derived from plants. The plant derived pesticides are older, less effective, and require HEAVIER & MORE FREQUENT application rates than their more modern peers.
Besides, if these 'poisons' as you put it were actually 'poisons' for humans, don't you think people would have started getting sick by now? How about you spend a half an hour thinking about your preconceptions and their logical consequences before running your mouth off (keyboard off?). Most pesticides target enzymatic pathways UNIQUE to the pests they are targeting, and not present in humans. I remember my biochemistry teacher drinking a glass full of rat poison in front of us because humans lack the liver enzyme that converts the compound into a biological poison.
Thus ignoring the expected doubling of the global food demand by 2050. It also ignores the fact that most western countries are increasingly building houses on what was previously farmlandl. Total land mass devoted to agriculture is going to decrease. There is no more land, and all of these new people are going to want their McMansions, or at least a roof over their head.
The reason that Organic produces almost twice as much in developing countries is that they aren't using the land efficiently at all. It's not like developing countries are using the same agricultural practices that we use on a modern farm in the Midwest US. Using Modern practices would more than double yields/acre in developing countries, which is going to be needed if we are going to grow twice as much food 40 years from now than we are today. Especially if we are going to continue increasing the percent of US corn production headed to the fuel ethanol industry (23% back in '07 or '08, which was up from 13% two years prior).
would removing plants to allow passage through dense forests be considered "technology"?
I don't see why not. Only a handful of species actively alter their environment to better suit their needs. By your definitions I would assume that learning how to make stronger and sharper axes would be considered "Technology" why would the use of these tools not be considered the result of that technological advancement?
You are an idiot. Plain and simple. I'm assuming that you are also an engineer, so you assume that the engineering aspects of the problem were the primary ones. As an animal Scientist I can assure you that while the Mechanical engineering aspects were very imporant, they were by no means the primary motivators of our decreased dependence on man power to produce animals.
You can't design a tractor that kills more weeds per spray with pesticide. You can't design a tractor to reduce the days to market for a newly hatched chick from 6 months to 8 weeks, or that doubles milk yield/cow, or that decreases feed formulation costs based on a better understanding of actual nutrient requirements (if you could for the last one, I'd be out of a job). We produce more product from less animals, with less waste, and less overall inputs, which in turn requires less man-hours to do the work.
You can't neglect the advancements made by all agricultural research communities without looking like a total ignoramous.
I'm confused. By UHT I assume that you mean Ultra High Temperature Pasturization, which is the European perferred form of pasturization. It leads to a slight carmelization of the proteins and sugars in the milk, but also allows for the milk to be stored at room temperature as long as the packaging is sealed. In the US we pasturize for longer, and a lower temp. It avoids the carmelization, but requires the milk to be stored chilled even before it is opened. Both are Pasturization, just at different temperatures and for different amounts of time.
Crop rotation is endemic to the entirety of crop production. One big reason is that corn and soy don't take the same nutrients out of the soil at the same rate. If you rotate between different crops, you save money on fertilizers.
I will never understand the rationale behind this resentment of any modern agricultural practice. No matter what the science shows, there will always be idiots like you that prefer we do things the "Old Way", despite the old way being less efficient, more reckless with the environment, and more likely to lead to starvation around the world as global demand for food continues to increase.
I agree that the impact of different techniques should be studied before they become widespread. However, what people like you fail to realize is that it usually is. Just because the results of a study into the environmental impact of round-up ready corn vs. conventional corn doesn't make it onto the front page of the NYTimes, doens't mean that the study wasn't performed.
Check out Feedstuffs Magazine. Its a weekly (bi-weekly?) magazine devoted to covering agriculture. You'd be amazed at what research everyone is calling for is already being done, but ignored by those too busy yelling to pick of a damn paper and read.
which is most likely psychosomatic. If you pay more for something, you expect it to be better, and will believe it to be so even if in blind studies you can't tell the difference. It's all about what your expectations are going into it.
Besides, if you are like me and 'eat to live' instead of 'live to eat' any percieved difference is usually not worth the cost.
In theory, but not in practice. In the decade or more since the EU has banned all sub-theraputic use of antibiotics in livestock, and the theraputic use of antibiotics important for human medicine, there has been no reduction in resistance levels. There hasn't even been a change in resistance levels in livestock, despite all of the generations that have gone without ever being treated with some of these antibiotics. It's all red-herring encouraged by the human health industry to hide the fact that they are irresponsibly using antibiotics in human medicine.
How many people do you know that have been given antibiotics they didn't actually need, or failed to take all of their meds. I'd bet that everyone in the western world has done both at least once. Besides, sub-theraputic doses of antibiotics are only routinely fed at certain stages. Mainly during weaning because it frequently occurs during the time when the maternally transfered immunity is wearing off and the piglets immune system is still coming online. Otherwise antibiotic use is avoided because they are EXPENSIVE.
Yes it can be abused by some producers, but those abuses are no where near as systematic as the antibiotic abuses seen in human medicine.
We see more antibiotic resistant strains of bugs because of HUMAN abuse of antibiotics.
How often do you come into contact with pigs or chickens eating antibiotic treated food? Most never do. Most people don't even come less than with 3 degrees of separation of a farm animal.
If you are thinking "what about antibiotics in the meat/milk?" I can assure you that your fears are unwarranted. Many people are allergic to some sort of antibiotic. If these antibiotics were getting into the meat or milk, those with serious allergies would be dropping dead over there steaks. Antibiotics that get into milk would stop the cheese making bugs in their tracks. In fact, if you get caught selling antibiotic tainted milk (every load from every farm is tested), you will be forced to buy back no only your milk, but any other milk that was mixed with yours. Second offense and you can't sell milk for several months, third offense can lead to a life time refusal to purchase your milk (killing your farm).
Well what about bacteria with resistance genes that get on the meat and then into us? That would be a valid concern, except that most bacterial species that colonize the gut of pigs, chickens, cattle, and any other livestock specie are "Speciallists" they cannot set up shop in the human intestine for more than a limited period of time. The predominant bacterial Genus in Humans is bifidobacteria, but they usually make up a negligable portion of any other animals enteral microbiota.
Essentially the "Animals are to blame for Antibiotic resistance levels" is FUD spread by the human health industry to try and cover up for their reckless use of antibiotics in human health. While most never come into contact with livestock being treated with antibiotics, everyone has interacted with someone that was prescribed antibiotics they didn't actually need, or that didn't take their meds for the full period. THAT is the true cause of the rise in resistance genes.
That is why in the decade ore more since the EU banned all sub-theraputic use of antibiotics in livestock, and the theraputic use of many antibiotics important for humans, there has been no decrease in antibiotic resistance gene prevelance in livestock or in humans.
I'll grant you that pumping your food full of hormones is a bad thing
Why? All animal hormones are tested for cross reactivity in humans. Even if they don't cross react, there are manditory withdrawl periods for all medications. Tests are run to determine how long the compound resides in the animals tissues and then extra time is added on to ensure that there is none present.
The poster child for the animal hormone industry BST has even been injected directly into human bloodstream and been shown to have ZERO effect. This is because BST is a protein hormone, and the necessary protein receptor in humans is too dissimilar from its analogue in Cattle.
As to the antibiotics. There are mandatory withdrawl periods in livestock for those too. If they didn't, people all of the country that are allergic to various antibiotics would be keeling over dead at dinner as a result of their allergies. Since that DOESN'T HAPPEN, it's means that these antibiotics are NOT in the meat. Same thing goes for Milk.
Little girls are developing younger than they used to because the are fatter than they used to be at the same age. Onset of puberty is tied more closely to hormone indicators of body mass, than to age. If you limit feed your daughter, she will enter puberty later. The alternative has been happening because of the high body fat most Western children are developing at younger ages. Bovine hormones have nothing to do with it.
Besides, all animal hormones need to be tested for cross reactivity with human receptors before they can be approved for use in livestock. There are also mandatory withdrawl periods for all medications in livestock feed. If your animal products test positive you are going to be in deep trouble with the USDA and FDA.
The poster child for the animal hormone industry is BST, which has actually been injected directly into the blood stream of humans and been shown to have absolutely NO effect. It's because it is a protein hormone and the necessary protein receptor in humans is too dissimilar from its bovine analogue
Ok, you are confusing the issues here. Pesticides in the water can be a problem. However, organic food produciton is not the answer. Contrary to popular belief, organic production allows for the use of some pesticides. Mostly from older categories that are no longer in widespread use. The reason they are not in widespread use is that they don't work as well, require more frequent application, and require much heavier application rates (more pounds/acre). All of these characteristics trace back to them being derived from plants, which is why they can be used by organic farmers. The net result of all this being that there is more pesticide runoff from organic farms than from modern agricultural practices.
Consequently, GM crops like the infamous "Round-Up Ready" varieties actually are better for the environment because they require far less pesticide applciation both in number of passes with the sprayer, and pounds of pesticide/acre.
I'm getting sick and fucking tire of these obviously misinformed rants about hormone injected animals.
First off, the hormone used in cattle is the exact same hormone they produce naturally, or dare I say Organically.
Second, the hormone is used primarily in dairy cattle because it increases yeild per cow, thus decreasing feed costs, waste production, and improves the overall financial and environmental imprint of a dairy operation that uses it.
3rd, beef cattle are not routinely injected with hormones, because it's a pain in the ass to manage. While dairy cattle all go through the milking parlor 2 to 3 times per day, there is no convenient analogous bottle neck in a feed lot.
4th, even if they did such a think in feed lots, a lot of cattle are grown on the open pasture and only see humans when the breeders are separated from those going to the slaughter house. For those it would be a complete waste of money to inject them with a hormone that wouldn't have enough time to do anything before the animal is killed. Especially since anabolic hormones suppress immune responsiveness and would increase the chances of a carcass being condemed at the plant, thus being worth nothing to the producer.
Unless you've actually worked with livestock professionally for a minimum of 6 months, or have actually bothered to take a productiona agriculture class in college, please refrain from posting anything other than questions. It's the equivalent of me posting bombasting comments about the differences between C, C++, C#, and Objective-C in programming threads, while knowing nothing more complicated than basic pearl.
I was speaking in terms of the huge conglomerate corporate farms that somehow still gets subsidies from the US govt.
you do realize that all incorporated farms get subsidies from the farm bill right? I've worked for small corporate farms of the mom & pop variety, as well as the larger corporate farms (still owned exclusively by a single family in most cases), and I can assure you that the larger operations are the ones most likely to be excellent stewards of the animals and land. Smaller operations lack economies of scale and frequently cut corners to get by. Larger operations have many more people that could serve as potential witnesses at a later date. Also, the people making the decisions on large operations are usually not the ones that will have to spend the extra 2 hours outside in the summer heat doing things correctly, so it's easier for them to make the right call.
If a pesticide is absorbable and active in humans, it won't be approved by the USDA for use in agriculture. That's what the USDA and FDA exist for, so as to prevent toxic chemicals from getting in the human food supply.
All pesticides need to be tested extensively in animals to show no toxicity at levels far above what could possibly be found in food before they can be approved for use. I've even performed some toxicology studies for animal feed enzymes.
Locally grown I can support, but there is no need to buy organic ever. Locally grown produce keeps your money in the local economy and saves on transportation (both $ and CO2).
Organic, on the other hand, is a marketing term that gives the impression of better environmental stewardship, but really means greater environmental impact. Even if you are buying at the local farmers market. In order to actually be organic, they have to spend a lot of time and money getting approval from the USDA. They still end up producing their food inefficiently and at greater detrement to the environment.
Never mind that using "Organic" agricultural practices exclusively would lead to massive starvation all around the glob. The only reason that we have enough to feed the global population now is the use of "Modern" agricultural practices that grew out of the "Green Revolution".
Listening to the biased lectures of people with a political axe to grind (Never mind a Book to sell), and have never had to actually produce the food they eat is fucking stupid. Try taking an agriculture class, or reading one of the numerous independent reports about how the current rate of population growth will require us to Double Global food production in the next 50 years. Since "Organic" production actually decreases yeilds, requires more fertilizers, and more diesel fuel, there is no way for us to reach that level through Organic means. The only alternative is to let people starve so that the rich can wrongfully feel good about how they spend their money on food.
You may not have used the words "I think", but I get to chime in anyway because I've actually worked on produce farms and currently work in animal agriculture.
I've never heard of the ethylene gas/tomatoes technique, but I worked on a produce farm in Massachusetts, so maybe the practice is different elsewhere. The produce farm I worked on picked vine rippened tomatoes and shipped them to a farmers market 6 hours away where they were sold to grocery stores, restraunts, and individual customers.
As to the animal agriculture comments. Pure bred Angus cattle have superior marbling characteristics, but the cattle that get marketed as "Black Angus" don't have to be purbred. IIRC, they can get away with being only 90% Angus. That 10% is frequently Herford, which has been bred in over successive generations in order to get them to grow faster, or Brahman for greater heat tollerance, with the unfortunate side effect of reduced marbeling in some.
I have no idea what you are talking about with the pork, turkey, or chicken industries. The only growth hormone I've ever seen marketed is BST for Cattle. No one injects poultry, Period. No one injects Pigs, Period. These species have shorter generation intervals, so improvements tend to come from better genetic selection, not from a syringe. For cattle, BST tends to be used in dairy cattle to increase milk production per cow, thus increasing the overall efficiency of the industry.
If they lack pesticides and potentially harmful hormones then that is an added benefit.
Contrary to popular belief, there are no pesticide residues in plants. All produce is washed before being sold or used to manufacture food products. It's a USDA legal requirement becuase of the potential for people to have averse reactions to the pesticides, and those found transgressing will face heavy fines, and agriculture is NOT a high margin industry.
The reason that "Organic" anything costs more money is the inefficiencies imposed by the regulations governing what can legally be marketed as "Organic". They basically throw out a lot of our technological advancements because of a "Feeling" despite plenty of emperical evidence that our "Feeling" is "Wrong". Then there is the documentation required to prove that at every step of the way, production was in line with regulations. That's why many things that are inherently "organic" went up in price. The extra time and energy required for documentation and verification costs money, and that extra cost is passed on to the consumer.
Please do me, and everyone else here, a favor and shut up unless you actually know what the hell you are talking about. I don't chime in on the discussions of different programing languages because I'd be completely out of my depth. You Obviously are out of your depth, along with most other/.ers, and should refrain from posting in these discussions unless it is to ask a question, because that is all you are educationally qualified to do.
Contrary to popular belief, Organic food does use pesticides and fertilizers. They are just limited in which ones they are allowed to use. The pesticides are of older categories, derived from other plants, hence being acceptable as "organic". However, they are not as effective as the newer ones (which is why we use the newer ones in the first place) and in order to work effectively require much higher application rates (lbs/acre) and more frequent applications (10-12 times/season instead of 3-6).
Even with the use of these "Organic" pesticides and fertlizers, they cannot produce the same number of bushels/acre. That means that they need to use more acres to grow the same amount of corn or soy. Never mind all of the diesel fuel consumed by running the tractor over more land more frequently in a given season.
When it comes to animal agriculture it's even worse. Chickens have a Huge dietary requirement for the amino acid Methionine, but grains are poor sources of Methionine. In order to meet the requirement without doubling the number of days to market (from 7 to 14 weeks) all conventional, as well as all "Organic" broiler chicken diets contain a source of synthetic Methionine activity. All regulations governing organic animal production allow for a Methionine Exception.
Without these exceptions, producers would be forced to either double days to market or achieve adequate Methionine levels by dramatically over feeding crude protein (~30% vs. the normal of ~20%). The excess amino acids that make up the Crude Protein would be catabolized and stored as fat, with their associated Nitrogen groups excreted as waste. Excess waste Nitrogen is a Huge environmental issue because Nitrogen is usually the rate limiting nutrient in saltwater environments. Excess Nitrogen from fields and composting poultry litter can end up getting into local water and causing Eutrophication.
Alternatively in "Modern" broiler chicken diets you can actually feed diets containing as little as 12% Crude Protien, with extensive use of synthetic amino acids. This results in identical or occationally superior performance on the part of the growing birds, and Dramatically Reduced levels of Nitrogen in the animals waste. This also saves money for the producer, limits the potential for negative environmental impact, and is practically required if you are going to stay on the right side of environmental regulations here in the US.
There is nothing "Environmentall Friendly" about Organic food. Organic food and Sustainability are actually antithetical to each other. I would say that buying organic food is financial masterbation, except that's not fair to masterbation. They both make you feel good, but only Organic food is actually bad for the environment.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not an avid supporter of the current system. I frequently get annoyed by my inability to access recent articles because my University doesn't have access to the online content, and the journal only makes articles Open Access after 6, 12, and sometimes 18 months. It's counter productive and prevents me from reading and citing papers from certain journals until after they are old news.
However, the quote chosen for the summary strikes me as the Academic equivalent of an Urban Legend. Maybe it's because I'm still early in my career (less than 10 publications so far), but I've never seen a journal that requires you to pay them if you want to cite them. Access, and reprints are how journals make their money, and reprints are virtually dead now that you can usually download a PDF copy of the final article. Journals WANT you to cite their articles, because it increases the chances of someone who doesn't have access already paying for reprints, or better yet a subscription.
Feel free to correct me if any of you have 1st hand experience to the contrary, not the ephemeral "I heard it from a friend, who worked with a guy"
I don't know if that screed was directed at me, but I'm not a giant "open source" advocate, douchie or not.
I have no problem with any OS developer dictating the term with which developers are allowed to write apps for their OS. If they are too restrictive they'll shoot themselves in the foot, and it'll ultimately be their loss. I just thought that the summary was unnecessarily written in such a way as to promote a useless flame war.
P.S. there are more "closed" mobile systems around, it's just that no one is actually interested in developing for them. the iPhone is simply the most closed of the Desirable mobile platforms.
All of your arguments fall short because you are anthropomorphizing evolution into an intelligent design instead of a haphazard process by which most mutations result in disadvantage or no advantage at all. Evolution is not some "intelligent designer" that can take certain genes out of cold storage and turn them bak on when convenient. If genes get silenced or turn on, it is completely random.
You are right that that we didn't NEED pelts and larger teeth, but that doesn't mean that they wouldn't have helped. Humans living in Europe during the last ice age obviously got by, but that doesn't mean that a persistent, or even seasonal pelt wouldn't have given them an advantage. It may have only meant that a handful more humans were able to survive each winter, but that is what evolutionary advantage is all about. If we had NEEDED pelts, we wouldn't have been able to colonize Europe until after the glaciers had receded in the first place.
IIRC, there actually is a family of humans that have animal like fur all over their bodies. However, the re-emergence of the Furry Human phenotype didn't happen in a cold environment, but down in Mexico.
Evolution is NOT about optimal design, but about Good Enough.
It's not a question of whether the genes are still present within the genome, but whether or not the genes are expressed and result in the phenotype. There are literally thousands of "silenced" genes in the human genome. Once a gene becomes silenced, mutations within that gene are no longer selected against, and the slow accumulation of defects ends up creating a gene that may not function properly even if it were to be expressed.
Genes are mutated randomly & rarely Genes are silenced randomly & rarely
the inputs of evolution are completely random, what appears like a pattern is the result of evolution only being viewed from the present back. We don't tend to see those single generation mutations that result in offspring that die almost immediately, if the fetus develops completely at all.
You are also making a huge assumption as to the Perceived Cost of spikes. Frequently what we assume is biologically expensive turns out not to be. Take antibiotic resistance genes in bacteria. Europe banned the use of various antibiotics in animals. Some were only banned at sub-theraputic levels and others were banned completely. The expectation being that over time, the bacteria with the antibiotic resistance genes would be at a disadvantage relative to their non resistant peers. By that reasoning, antibiotic resistance gene prevalence should decrease with time. Due to the incredibly short generation interval for bacteria, they expected to see changes in a couple of years. However, roughly a decade after the ban, the prevalence of antibiotic resistance genes, even those that only conferred resistance to the antibiotics that were completely banned, have not changed at all. It turns out that antibiotic resistance genes are not expensive, or offer some sort of competitive advantage outside of their ability to protect against certain antibiotics.
Perception is not reality, and that goes for evolutionary advantage as well.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not that the third world countries are using "organic" methods. Organic production techniques are the "Modern" techniques of anywhere from 10 to 60 years ago. The fact that third world countries see increased yeild by updating from practices that are even older does not prove that organic production is better, or that it should even be acceptable in comparison to moder techniques.
When you compare modern techniques and organic techniques, modern actually comes out better for the environment, CO2 footprint, and virtually any other metric with the notable exception of "Ephemeral Smugness Factor" that rich morons get from purchasing anything with the "organic" label.
Search this page for some of my other posts for my arguments, as I'm tired of repeating myself.
If their seeds didn't bring improvements for the farmers, then they wouldn't buy their seeds! Therefore, Monsanto has to provide improvements for their customers inorder to earnt the improved bottom line their shareholders are looking for. I fail to see the reasoning behind the "Large Corporations are the DEVIL" meme that is so persistent here on slashdot.
If large corporations weren't able to sell their products, they wouldn't be able to remain large. No company can sell their products if there isn't at least some sort of demand for them. Farmers like Monsanto grain because it saves them both Time and Money, neither of which most farmers have in excess.
That roundup ready crops require no tilling, less fertlizer, less pesticide, and less diesel fuel, and are better for the environment in the long run should be PRAISED by the environmentalists on this site. However, because they are a big corporation, they don't get any positive credit for what they do, no matter who benefits.
P.S. And before you reply, I'm NOT, nor have I ever been an employee of Monsanto or any of it's subsidiaries. I have never personally benefited financially from them. I'm just an agriculturalist that can think for myself and decided that the rest of you are idiots.
FYI, organic production does allow for fertlizers and pesticides. They are limited to those derived from plants. The plant derived pesticides are older, less effective, and require HEAVIER & MORE FREQUENT application rates than their more modern peers.
Besides, if these 'poisons' as you put it were actually 'poisons' for humans, don't you think people would have started getting sick by now? How about you spend a half an hour thinking about your preconceptions and their logical consequences before running your mouth off (keyboard off?). Most pesticides target enzymatic pathways UNIQUE to the pests they are targeting, and not present in humans. I remember my biochemistry teacher drinking a glass full of rat poison in front of us because humans lack the liver enzyme that converts the compound into a biological poison.
Thus ignoring the expected doubling of the global food demand by 2050. It also ignores the fact that most western countries are increasingly building houses on what was previously farmlandl. Total land mass devoted to agriculture is going to decrease. There is no more land, and all of these new people are going to want their McMansions, or at least a roof over their head.
The reason that Organic produces almost twice as much in developing countries is that they aren't using the land efficiently at all. It's not like developing countries are using the same agricultural practices that we use on a modern farm in the Midwest US. Using Modern practices would more than double yields/acre in developing countries, which is going to be needed if we are going to grow twice as much food 40 years from now than we are today. Especially if we are going to continue increasing the percent of US corn production headed to the fuel ethanol industry (23% back in '07 or '08, which was up from 13% two years prior).
would removing plants to allow passage through dense forests be considered "technology"?
I don't see why not. Only a handful of species actively alter their environment to better suit their needs. By your definitions I would assume that learning how to make stronger and sharper axes would be considered "Technology" why would the use of these tools not be considered the result of that technological advancement?
You are an idiot. Plain and simple. I'm assuming that you are also an engineer, so you assume that the engineering aspects of the problem were the primary ones. As an animal Scientist I can assure you that while the Mechanical engineering aspects were very imporant, they were by no means the primary motivators of our decreased dependence on man power to produce animals.
You can't design a tractor that kills more weeds per spray with pesticide. You can't design a tractor to reduce the days to market for a newly hatched chick from 6 months to 8 weeks, or that doubles milk yield/cow, or that decreases feed formulation costs based on a better understanding of actual nutrient requirements (if you could for the last one, I'd be out of a job). We produce more product from less animals, with less waste, and less overall inputs, which in turn requires less man-hours to do the work.
You can't neglect the advancements made by all agricultural research communities without looking like a total ignoramous.
I'm confused. By UHT I assume that you mean Ultra High Temperature Pasturization, which is the European perferred form of pasturization. It leads to a slight carmelization of the proteins and sugars in the milk, but also allows for the milk to be stored at room temperature as long as the packaging is sealed. In the US we pasturize for longer, and a lower temp. It avoids the carmelization, but requires the milk to be stored chilled even before it is opened. Both are Pasturization, just at different temperatures and for different amounts of time.
I shouldn't feed the AC but,
Crop rotation is endemic to the entirety of crop production. One big reason is that corn and soy don't take the same nutrients out of the soil at the same rate. If you rotate between different crops, you save money on fertilizers.
I will never understand the rationale behind this resentment of any modern agricultural practice. No matter what the science shows, there will always be idiots like you that prefer we do things the "Old Way", despite the old way being less efficient, more reckless with the environment, and more likely to lead to starvation around the world as global demand for food continues to increase.
I agree that the impact of different techniques should be studied before they become widespread. However, what people like you fail to realize is that it usually is. Just because the results of a study into the environmental impact of round-up ready corn vs. conventional corn doesn't make it onto the front page of the NYTimes, doens't mean that the study wasn't performed.
Check out Feedstuffs Magazine. Its a weekly (bi-weekly?) magazine devoted to covering agriculture. You'd be amazed at what research everyone is calling for is already being done, but ignored by those too busy yelling to pick of a damn paper and read.
which is most likely psychosomatic. If you pay more for something, you expect it to be better, and will believe it to be so even if in blind studies you can't tell the difference. It's all about what your expectations are going into it.
Besides, if you are like me and 'eat to live' instead of 'live to eat' any percieved difference is usually not worth the cost.
In theory, but not in practice. In the decade or more since the EU has banned all sub-theraputic use of antibiotics in livestock, and the theraputic use of antibiotics important for human medicine, there has been no reduction in resistance levels. There hasn't even been a change in resistance levels in livestock, despite all of the generations that have gone without ever being treated with some of these antibiotics. It's all red-herring encouraged by the human health industry to hide the fact that they are irresponsibly using antibiotics in human medicine.
How many people do you know that have been given antibiotics they didn't actually need, or failed to take all of their meds. I'd bet that everyone in the western world has done both at least once. Besides, sub-theraputic doses of antibiotics are only routinely fed at certain stages. Mainly during weaning because it frequently occurs during the time when the maternally transfered immunity is wearing off and the piglets immune system is still coming online. Otherwise antibiotic use is avoided because they are EXPENSIVE.
Yes it can be abused by some producers, but those abuses are no where near as systematic as the antibiotic abuses seen in human medicine.
We see more antibiotic resistant strains of bugs because of HUMAN abuse of antibiotics.
How often do you come into contact with pigs or chickens eating antibiotic treated food? Most never do. Most people don't even come less than with 3 degrees of separation of a farm animal.
If you are thinking "what about antibiotics in the meat/milk?" I can assure you that your fears are unwarranted. Many people are allergic to some sort of antibiotic. If these antibiotics were getting into the meat or milk, those with serious allergies would be dropping dead over there steaks. Antibiotics that get into milk would stop the cheese making bugs in their tracks. In fact, if you get caught selling antibiotic tainted milk (every load from every farm is tested), you will be forced to buy back no only your milk, but any other milk that was mixed with yours. Second offense and you can't sell milk for several months, third offense can lead to a life time refusal to purchase your milk (killing your farm).
Well what about bacteria with resistance genes that get on the meat and then into us? That would be a valid concern, except that most bacterial species that colonize the gut of pigs, chickens, cattle, and any other livestock specie are "Speciallists" they cannot set up shop in the human intestine for more than a limited period of time. The predominant bacterial Genus in Humans is bifidobacteria, but they usually make up a negligable portion of any other animals enteral microbiota.
Essentially the "Animals are to blame for Antibiotic resistance levels" is FUD spread by the human health industry to try and cover up for their reckless use of antibiotics in human health. While most never come into contact with livestock being treated with antibiotics, everyone has interacted with someone that was prescribed antibiotics they didn't actually need, or that didn't take their meds for the full period. THAT is the true cause of the rise in resistance genes.
That is why in the decade ore more since the EU banned all sub-theraputic use of antibiotics in livestock, and the theraputic use of many antibiotics important for humans, there has been no decrease in antibiotic resistance gene prevelance in livestock or in humans.
I'll grant you that pumping your food full of hormones is a bad thing
Why? All animal hormones are tested for cross reactivity in humans. Even if they don't cross react, there are manditory withdrawl periods for all medications. Tests are run to determine how long the compound resides in the animals tissues and then extra time is added on to ensure that there is none present.
The poster child for the animal hormone industry BST has even been injected directly into human bloodstream and been shown to have ZERO effect. This is because BST is a protein hormone, and the necessary protein receptor in humans is too dissimilar from its analogue in Cattle.
As to the antibiotics. There are mandatory withdrawl periods in livestock for those too. If they didn't, people all of the country that are allergic to various antibiotics would be keeling over dead at dinner as a result of their allergies. Since that DOESN'T HAPPEN, it's means that these antibiotics are NOT in the meat. Same thing goes for Milk.
Little girls are developing younger than they used to because the are fatter than they used to be at the same age. Onset of puberty is tied more closely to hormone indicators of body mass, than to age. If you limit feed your daughter, she will enter puberty later. The alternative has been happening because of the high body fat most Western children are developing at younger ages. Bovine hormones have nothing to do with it.
Besides, all animal hormones need to be tested for cross reactivity with human receptors before they can be approved for use in livestock. There are also mandatory withdrawl periods for all medications in livestock feed. If your animal products test positive you are going to be in deep trouble with the USDA and FDA.
The poster child for the animal hormone industry is BST, which has actually been injected directly into the blood stream of humans and been shown to have absolutely NO effect. It's because it is a protein hormone and the necessary protein receptor in humans is too dissimilar from its bovine analogue
Ok, you are confusing the issues here. Pesticides in the water can be a problem. However, organic food produciton is not the answer. Contrary to popular belief, organic production allows for the use of some pesticides. Mostly from older categories that are no longer in widespread use. The reason they are not in widespread use is that they don't work as well, require more frequent application, and require much heavier application rates (more pounds/acre). All of these characteristics trace back to them being derived from plants, which is why they can be used by organic farmers. The net result of all this being that there is more pesticide runoff from organic farms than from modern agricultural practices.
Consequently, GM crops like the infamous "Round-Up Ready" varieties actually are better for the environment because they require far less pesticide applciation both in number of passes with the sprayer, and pounds of pesticide/acre.
I'm getting sick and fucking tire of these obviously misinformed rants about hormone injected animals.
First off, the hormone used in cattle is the exact same hormone they produce naturally, or dare I say Organically.
Second, the hormone is used primarily in dairy cattle because it increases yeild per cow, thus decreasing feed costs, waste production, and improves the overall financial and environmental imprint of a dairy operation that uses it.
3rd, beef cattle are not routinely injected with hormones, because it's a pain in the ass to manage. While dairy cattle all go through the milking parlor 2 to 3 times per day, there is no convenient analogous bottle neck in a feed lot.
4th, even if they did such a think in feed lots, a lot of cattle are grown on the open pasture and only see humans when the breeders are separated from those going to the slaughter house. For those it would be a complete waste of money to inject them with a hormone that wouldn't have enough time to do anything before the animal is killed. Especially since anabolic hormones suppress immune responsiveness and would increase the chances of a carcass being condemed at the plant, thus being worth nothing to the producer.
Unless you've actually worked with livestock professionally for a minimum of 6 months, or have actually bothered to take a productiona agriculture class in college, please refrain from posting anything other than questions. It's the equivalent of me posting bombasting comments about the differences between C, C++, C#, and Objective-C in programming threads, while knowing nothing more complicated than basic pearl.
I was speaking in terms of the huge conglomerate corporate farms that somehow still gets subsidies from the US govt.
you do realize that all incorporated farms get subsidies from the farm bill right? I've worked for small corporate farms of the mom & pop variety, as well as the larger corporate farms (still owned exclusively by a single family in most cases), and I can assure you that the larger operations are the ones most likely to be excellent stewards of the animals and land. Smaller operations lack economies of scale and frequently cut corners to get by. Larger operations have many more people that could serve as potential witnesses at a later date. Also, the people making the decisions on large operations are usually not the ones that will have to spend the extra 2 hours outside in the summer heat doing things correctly, so it's easier for them to make the right call.
If a pesticide is absorbable and active in humans, it won't be approved by the USDA for use in agriculture. That's what the USDA and FDA exist for, so as to prevent toxic chemicals from getting in the human food supply.
All pesticides need to be tested extensively in animals to show no toxicity at levels far above what could possibly be found in food before they can be approved for use. I've even performed some toxicology studies for animal feed enzymes.
Locally grown I can support, but there is no need to buy organic ever. Locally grown produce keeps your money in the local economy and saves on transportation (both $ and CO2).
Organic, on the other hand, is a marketing term that gives the impression of better environmental stewardship, but really means greater environmental impact. Even if you are buying at the local farmers market. In order to actually be organic, they have to spend a lot of time and money getting approval from the USDA. They still end up producing their food inefficiently and at greater detrement to the environment.
Never mind that using "Organic" agricultural practices exclusively would lead to massive starvation all around the glob. The only reason that we have enough to feed the global population now is the use of "Modern" agricultural practices that grew out of the "Green Revolution".
Listening to the biased lectures of people with a political axe to grind (Never mind a Book to sell), and have never had to actually produce the food they eat is fucking stupid. Try taking an agriculture class, or reading one of the numerous independent reports about how the current rate of population growth will require us to Double Global food production in the next 50 years. Since "Organic" production actually decreases yeilds, requires more fertilizers, and more diesel fuel, there is no way for us to reach that level through Organic means. The only alternative is to let people starve so that the rich can wrongfully feel good about how they spend their money on food.
You may not have used the words "I think", but I get to chime in anyway because I've actually worked on produce farms and currently work in animal agriculture.
I've never heard of the ethylene gas/tomatoes technique, but I worked on a produce farm in Massachusetts, so maybe the practice is different elsewhere. The produce farm I worked on picked vine rippened tomatoes and shipped them to a farmers market 6 hours away where they were sold to grocery stores, restraunts, and individual customers.
As to the animal agriculture comments. Pure bred Angus cattle have superior marbling characteristics, but the cattle that get marketed as "Black Angus" don't have to be purbred. IIRC, they can get away with being only 90% Angus. That 10% is frequently Herford, which has been bred in over successive generations in order to get them to grow faster, or Brahman for greater heat tollerance, with the unfortunate side effect of reduced marbeling in some.
I have no idea what you are talking about with the pork, turkey, or chicken industries. The only growth hormone I've ever seen marketed is BST for Cattle. No one injects poultry, Period. No one injects Pigs, Period. These species have shorter generation intervals, so improvements tend to come from better genetic selection, not from a syringe. For cattle, BST tends to be used in dairy cattle to increase milk production per cow, thus increasing the overall efficiency of the industry.
If they lack pesticides and potentially harmful hormones then that is an added benefit.
Contrary to popular belief, there are no pesticide residues in plants. All produce is washed before being sold or used to manufacture food products. It's a USDA legal requirement becuase of the potential for people to have averse reactions to the pesticides, and those found transgressing will face heavy fines, and agriculture is NOT a high margin industry.
The reason that "Organic" anything costs more money is the inefficiencies imposed by the regulations governing what can legally be marketed as "Organic". They basically throw out a lot of our technological advancements because of a "Feeling" despite plenty of emperical evidence that our "Feeling" is "Wrong". Then there is the documentation required to prove that at every step of the way, production was in line with regulations. That's why many things that are inherently "organic" went up in price. The extra time and energy required for documentation and verification costs money, and that extra cost is passed on to the consumer.
Please do me, and everyone else here, a favor and shut up unless you actually know what the hell you are talking about. I don't chime in on the discussions of different programing languages because I'd be completely out of my depth. You Obviously are out of your depth, along with most other /.ers, and should refrain from posting in these discussions unless it is to ask a question, because that is all you are educationally qualified to do.
Contrary to popular belief, Organic food does use pesticides and fertilizers. They are just limited in which ones they are allowed to use. The pesticides are of older categories, derived from other plants, hence being acceptable as "organic". However, they are not as effective as the newer ones (which is why we use the newer ones in the first place) and in order to work effectively require much higher application rates (lbs/acre) and more frequent applications (10-12 times/season instead of 3-6).
Even with the use of these "Organic" pesticides and fertlizers, they cannot produce the same number of bushels/acre. That means that they need to use more acres to grow the same amount of corn or soy. Never mind all of the diesel fuel consumed by running the tractor over more land more frequently in a given season.
When it comes to animal agriculture it's even worse. Chickens have a Huge dietary requirement for the amino acid Methionine, but grains are poor sources of Methionine. In order to meet the requirement without doubling the number of days to market (from 7 to 14 weeks) all conventional, as well as all "Organic" broiler chicken diets contain a source of synthetic Methionine activity. All regulations governing organic animal production allow for a Methionine Exception.
Without these exceptions, producers would be forced to either double days to market or achieve adequate Methionine levels by dramatically over feeding crude protein (~30% vs. the normal of ~20%). The excess amino acids that make up the Crude Protein would be catabolized and stored as fat, with their associated Nitrogen groups excreted as waste. Excess waste Nitrogen is a Huge environmental issue because Nitrogen is usually the rate limiting nutrient in saltwater environments. Excess Nitrogen from fields and composting poultry litter can end up getting into local water and causing Eutrophication.
Alternatively in "Modern" broiler chicken diets you can actually feed diets containing as little as 12% Crude Protien, with extensive use of synthetic amino acids. This results in identical or occationally superior performance on the part of the growing birds, and Dramatically Reduced levels of Nitrogen in the animals waste. This also saves money for the producer, limits the potential for negative environmental impact, and is practically required if you are going to stay on the right side of environmental regulations here in the US.
There is nothing "Environmentall Friendly" about Organic food. Organic food and Sustainability are actually antithetical to each other. I would say that buying organic food is financial masterbation, except that's not fair to masterbation. They both make you feel good, but only Organic food is actually bad for the environment.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not an avid supporter of the current system. I frequently get annoyed by my inability to access recent articles because my University doesn't have access to the online content, and the journal only makes articles Open Access after 6, 12, and sometimes 18 months. It's counter productive and prevents me from reading and citing papers from certain journals until after they are old news.
However, the quote chosen for the summary strikes me as the Academic equivalent of an Urban Legend. Maybe it's because I'm still early in my career (less than 10 publications so far), but I've never seen a journal that requires you to pay them if you want to cite them. Access, and reprints are how journals make their money, and reprints are virtually dead now that you can usually download a PDF copy of the final article. Journals WANT you to cite their articles, because it increases the chances of someone who doesn't have access already paying for reprints, or better yet a subscription.
Feel free to correct me if any of you have 1st hand experience to the contrary, not the ephemeral "I heard it from a friend, who worked with a guy"
I don't know if that screed was directed at me, but I'm not a giant "open source" advocate, douchie or not.
I have no problem with any OS developer dictating the term with which developers are allowed to write apps for their OS. If they are too restrictive they'll shoot themselves in the foot, and it'll ultimately be their loss. I just thought that the summary was unnecessarily written in such a way as to promote a useless flame war.
P.S. there are more "closed" mobile systems around, it's just that no one is actually interested in developing for them. the iPhone is simply the most closed of the Desirable mobile platforms.
All of your arguments fall short because you are anthropomorphizing evolution into an intelligent design instead of a haphazard process by which most mutations result in disadvantage or no advantage at all. Evolution is not some "intelligent designer" that can take certain genes out of cold storage and turn them bak on when convenient. If genes get silenced or turn on, it is completely random.
You are right that that we didn't NEED pelts and larger teeth, but that doesn't mean that they wouldn't have helped. Humans living in Europe during the last ice age obviously got by, but that doesn't mean that a persistent, or even seasonal pelt wouldn't have given them an advantage. It may have only meant that a handful more humans were able to survive each winter, but that is what evolutionary advantage is all about. If we had NEEDED pelts, we wouldn't have been able to colonize Europe until after the glaciers had receded in the first place.
IIRC, there actually is a family of humans that have animal like fur all over their bodies. However, the re-emergence of the Furry Human phenotype didn't happen in a cold environment, but down in Mexico.
Evolution is NOT about optimal design, but about Good Enough.
It's not a question of whether the genes are still present within the genome, but whether or not the genes are expressed and result in the phenotype. There are literally thousands of "silenced" genes in the human genome. Once a gene becomes silenced, mutations within that gene are no longer selected against, and the slow accumulation of defects ends up creating a gene that may not function properly even if it were to be expressed.
Genes are mutated randomly & rarely
Genes are silenced randomly & rarely
the inputs of evolution are completely random, what appears like a pattern is the result of evolution only being viewed from the present back. We don't tend to see those single generation mutations that result in offspring that die almost immediately, if the fetus develops completely at all.
You are also making a huge assumption as to the Perceived Cost of spikes. Frequently what we assume is biologically expensive turns out not to be. Take antibiotic resistance genes in bacteria. Europe banned the use of various antibiotics in animals. Some were only banned at sub-theraputic levels and others were banned completely. The expectation being that over time, the bacteria with the antibiotic resistance genes would be at a disadvantage relative to their non resistant peers. By that reasoning, antibiotic resistance gene prevalence should decrease with time. Due to the incredibly short generation interval for bacteria, they expected to see changes in a couple of years. However, roughly a decade after the ban, the prevalence of antibiotic resistance genes, even those that only conferred resistance to the antibiotics that were completely banned, have not changed at all. It turns out that antibiotic resistance genes are not expensive, or offer some sort of competitive advantage outside of their ability to protect against certain antibiotics.
Perception is not reality, and that goes for evolutionary advantage as well.