counterfeit titanium in Boeing and Airbus jets

[coppice]

its rich farmer vs poor farmer.

There is the guy with 4 specialized tractors with GPS, salaried ensured employees, and service contracts with john deere. And a aircraft hanger grade barn that makes you think your in space. Might even have a HR.


then there is the guy with 1 old ass tractor, jury rigged attachments and hires farm hands at the bar as needed. I feel like there is ALOT of this guy. Less now, but still. They work out of a prehistoric barn

Both are important.

But england is KNOWN for its luxury farming. Infact, there is like organized crime there that is entirely focused on stealing and chopping/reselling expenisve english farm equipment. They don't have land there, not alot... so the efficiency of a plot is maximized as much as possible, leading to very high tech being considered necessary.


But I don't think you could call england a bread basket. Its not like the outskirts of germany and beyond. But you get your cheap produce and wheat from those guys. And I hear the US has plenty of older style smaller farmers, because its damn big and land is cheaper, so you don't need to maximize it.


It has benefits too, there is less over farming of land. I doubt the english have soil totally figured out. And its more susceptible to blights.


I imagine there is MUCH LESS spread of disease. Its like people, there is super spreading events (international + concert venue, party rooms) and isolated small stuff with regulars.

A super dense high speed machine could contaminate alot of plants very quickly with plant diseases. And mass food processing centers are known to contaminate large amounts of food that can hurt alot of people with bacteria. It all has its benefits and downsides...


I feel like I read about some world threatening plant disease fairly regularly. They seem to deal with it but I think its better to have a good amount of back up

I think you totally miss the point. The UK has a totally deranged government, trying to shut farms down as polluting horrors, like eating is optional. I guess the bulk of the population eating is considered optional by some of the these highly privileged people. Farmers actually have no choice but to use fertilizer sparingly, because if they don't minimise the runoff into rivers they will be forced out of business by the state.

[SiliconWizard]

That's ok, you will eat bugs.

[coppercone2]

would ammonia not solve this problem? I thought the gaseous one had little runoff. the terrorist safer ammonium phosphate is the big problem with runoff.

Usually smart things choose food over safety. Most animals start taking risk when they hungry. england evolve past that point lol... isent that some oddball buddhist offshoot cult belief that you don't need to eat if your good enough at meditating?


i am sure statistically, even with some kinda home grown terrorism, there is still more violent crime from people committing crime for better food then there are terrorists committing crimes. like 0.05% chance of being stabbed so someone can buy a hamburger or the good cereal instead of 0.0000000000000001 percent change that a alquida is going to bomb you

like seriously nothing alive is safe when its hungry lol

[paulca]

I believe it's the CO2 production when making fertilizer that is the issue causing fingers to be pointed at "Industrial Farming"

States are introducing taxes on fertilizers and penalties for using amounts within bands.  These taxes/fees are not calibrated to "yeild".  So using a lot of fertilizer to make a lot of crops will cost the farmers profits compared to a failing crop with little fertilizer.

Not just Europe.  I believe Canada has begun similar.

The general populos have been spun down a long, long rabbit hole of different ways to get them to pay more for food.  Like "organic produce".  So they seem to think that all farms can return to little sleepy mixed private eco farms (like those lovely English Manor farms) using only raw animal dung and natural methods and NO industrial chemical fertilisers or pesticides.   This is what the good people of the likes of England want.  Fantasy.

Individual regions might be okay, but overall the world cannot sustain a 1/5th production rate and keep the current population alive.  I believe we have passed the point where industrial farming IS required to feed the planet already.

When I try and explain the issues to numb skulls they start to get confused when you explain... what you take from the land, you must give back, or you make a desert.   If you take tons of vegetables out of the field, you have to put back equal quantities of the elements you took.  Otherwise you will just end up with salt and sand. They can be in different forms of course.  You would be surprised how many people think that 100% of plants come from just water and air.

[David Hess]

I believe it's the CO2 production when making fertilizer that is the issue causing fingers to be pointed at "Industrial Farming"

Just to be clear about the connection here, the production of ammonia fertilizers, including ammonium nitrate, start with using methane as a source for hydrogen to make the ammonia.  Big fertilizer plants are located at petroleum refineries.

This is why the price of natural gas is closely correlated with the price of fertilizer.  At the start of the Russia and Ukraine fiasco when the US started supplying Europe with natural gas, fertilizer prices in North America tripled.  Every one of those tall fertilizer silos you see at various farms became worth a house.

If you want to make fertilizer, then you need a source of hydrogen.  Electrolysis is not economical, but there are high temperature water cracking processes which could be powered by a nuclear reactor if you want green fertilizer.

What happened not too long ago in Sri Lanka when they forced replacement of petrochemical sourced fertilizers with natural ones demonstrates the problem.  They lost 50% (?) of their food production.

[themadhippy]

start with using methane as a source for hydrogen to make the ammonia.

toyotas  ammonia engine  suddenly dont seem as  green as it makes out

[wraper]

What happened not too long ago in Sri Lanka when they forced replacement of petrochemical sourced fertilizers with natural ones demonstrates the problem.  They lost 50% (?) of their food production.

They simply abruptly banned imports of fertilizers, as if organic ones would appear out of nowhere, especially in a poor country as Sri Lanka. Who'd guess it would result in the food crisis. EU knuckleheads try doing something similar too, so many government buildings got fertilized with manure by protesting farmers, although most of the news outlets refrained from talking about it as if it did not happen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_European_farmers%27_protests

[jpanhalt]

The Haber process was invented in 1909 and earned a Nobel Prize in 1918.  I suppose Sri Lanka wants to return to 19th century agriculture.  Good luck feeding its population.  Don't many of the green politicians also want to ban cows?

[paulca]

The Haber process was invented in 1909 and earned a Nobel Prize in 1918.  I suppose Sri Lanka wants to return to 19th century agriculture.  Good luck feeding its population.  Don't many of the green politicians also want to ban cows?

IIRC Sri Lanka already under went the famine that resulted.

[RoGeorge]

CO2 increase might be the effect, not the cause, some professors in this documentary are saying.

Climate the Movie: The Cold Truth
efenigson
https://rumble.com/v4klh96-climate-the-movie-the-cold-truth.html

"Climate the Movie: The Cold Truth", Debunks Global Warming & Net Zero Narratives

This 80-minutes documentary, directed by Martin Durkin and produced by Tom Nelson, features world-renowned scientists and researchers, examining climate topics for many years, amongst them: Professor Steven Koonin (author of ‘Unsettled’, a former provost and vice-president of Caltech), Professor Dick Lindzen (formerly professor of meteorology at Harvard and MIT), Professor Will Happer (professor of physics at Princeton), Dr John Clauser (winner of the Nobel prize in Physics in 2022), Professor Nir Shaviv (Racah Institute of Physics) as well as Dr Roy Spencer, Prof Ross McKitrick, Prof Henrik Svensmark, and Dr Willie Soon.

About the film:

The film exposes the climate alarm as an invented scare without any basis in science. It shows that mainstream studies and official data do not support the claim that we are witnessing an increase in extreme weather events – hurricanes, droughts, heatwaves, wildfires and all the rest. It emphatically counters the claim that current temperatures and levels of atmospheric CO2 are unusually and worryingly high. On the contrary, it is very clearly the case, as can be seen in all mainstream studies, that, compared to the last half billion years of earth’s history, both current temperatures and CO2 levels are extremely and unusually low. We are currently in an ice age. It also shows that there is no evidence that changing levels of CO2 (it has changed many times) has ever ‘driven’ climate change in the past.

Why then, are we told, again and again, that ‘catastrophic man-made climate-change’ is an irrefutable fact? Why are we told that there is no evidence that contradicts it? Why are we told that anyone who questions ‘climate chaos’ is a ‘science-denier’?

The film explores the nature of the consensus behind climate change. It describes the origins of the climate funding bandwagon, and the rise of the trillion-dollar climate industry. It describes the hundreds of thousands of jobs that depend on the climate crisis. It explains the enormous pressure on scientists and others not to question the climate alarm: the withdrawal of funds, rejection by science journals, social ostracism.

But the climate alarm is much more than a funding and jobs bandwagon. The film explores the politics of climate. From the beginning, the climate scare was political. The culprit was free-market industrial capitalism. The solution was higher taxes and more regulation. From the start, the climate alarm appealed to, and has been adopted and promoted by, those groups who favour bigger government.

This is the unspoken political divide behind the climate alarm. The climate scare appeals especially to all those in the sprawling publicly-funded establishment. This includes the largely publicly-funded Western intelligentsia, for whom climate has become a moral cause. In these circles, to criticise or question the climate alarm has become a breach of social etiquette.

Quoted from the brief description of the linked documentary.

[jpanhalt]

Getting better, but domestic production still doesn't suffice:
https://reliefweb.int/disaster/ce-2022-000199-lka
https://reliefweb.int/report/sri-lanka/import-ban-chemical-fertilizers-and-other-agrochemicals-short-term-impacts-selected-pfcs-and-potato-crop-december-2022

However, my comment was meant to refer to lack of foresight by its leaders, which is common in many countries including the US.

[RJSV]

IMO the whole GUN and WEAPON thing appears to be rife with hypocrisy.
   'Guns bad...'. They say,  but then they say;
   'We must fund weapons (guns / ammo) to 'XYZ' country, to help them.'

   Of course, country is big, and diverse opinions are in play,  but the above quoted stuff (often) comes from same source.

(Snarky), I've often maintained a posture supporting BOTH SIDES, of ridiculous hypocrisy...;
   'Guns bad,  then how about we confiscate all our guns....send those confiscated weapons, to XYZ country, at War'!

[coppercone2]

Getting better, but domestic production still doesn't suffice:
https://reliefweb.int/disaster/ce-2022-000199-lka
https://reliefweb.int/report/sri-lanka/import-ban-chemical-fertilizers-and-other-agrochemicals-short-term-impacts-selected-pfcs-and-potato-crop-december-2022

However, my comment was meant to refer to lack of foresight by its leaders, which is common in many countries including the US.

but it never come close to soviet agricultural policies ! they went after the spirit of the research and chemistry, not just focused on measured side effects.

[coppice]

Getting better, but domestic production still doesn't suffice:
https://reliefweb.int/disaster/ce-2022-000199-lka
https://reliefweb.int/report/sri-lanka/import-ban-chemical-fertilizers-and-other-agrochemicals-short-term-impacts-selected-pfcs-and-potato-crop-december-2022

However, my comment was meant to refer to lack of foresight by its leaders, which is common in many countries including the US.

The worst part about these decisions is when they prove to be a disaster the perpetrators usually say something like "well, who could have seen that coming?" when every expert told them it would.

[paulca]

Getting better, but domestic production still doesn't suffice:
https://reliefweb.int/disaster/ce-2022-000199-lka
https://reliefweb.int/report/sri-lanka/import-ban-chemical-fertilizers-and-other-agrochemicals-short-term-impacts-selected-pfcs-and-potato-crop-december-2022

However, my comment was meant to refer to lack of foresight by its leaders, which is common in many countries including the US.

The worst part about these decisions is when they prove to be a disaster the perpetrators usually say something like "well, who could have seen that coming?" when every expert told them it would.

People don't like experts.  People don't want to listen to experts.  So people no longer vote for politicians who consult experts and act on expert opinion.

Experts are part of "them"!!!  Every conspiracy theorist, environmentalist and climate hippy knows this.

In fact, repeatedly the UK, having employed scientific experts in government, simply sacked them when they scientifically contradicted policy.  (Professor Nutt for example, there have been others).  His demise came when he was asked to back a health campaign specifically against Ecstacy.  He pointed out that if the country was to enforce anything practical, regarding public safety, it should focus it's efforts on reducing alcohol deaths and hand the drug problems over the medical institutions.   He was booted out of government simply for providing a report packed with empirical evidence.

[TimFox]

About 25 years ago, one of my college classmates ran for the US House of Representatives (from another State).  When he won his seat, he doubled the number of PhD physicists in that august body.
A few years later, another PhD physicist (from my State) was elected, and the number grew to three:  a conservative Republican and two liberal Democrats.
While all three were in office, the Chicago Tribune interview them together:  they all agreed that whenever another member (of either party) asked their technical opinion, he did not want advice on the best answer and only wanted to confirm the opinion he already had.

[Gyro]

With all respect to your technically competent classmate, I'm beginning to think that appropriately qualified people in various fields (nominated by their peers?) should be dragged, kicking and screaming, into public office. I'm not sure I trust anyone who actively seeks public office any more, they just don't seem very good effective / trustworthy when they get there.

Maybe it's an age thing.

[SiliconWizard]

CO2 increase might be the effect, not the cause, some professors in this documentary are saying.

How dare you?

[vk6zgo]

I believe it's the CO2 production when making fertilizer that is the issue causing fingers to be pointed at "Industrial Farming"

Just to be clear about the connection here, the production of ammonia fertilizers, including ammonium nitrate, start with using methane as a source for hydrogen to make the ammonia.  Big fertilizer plants are located at petroleum refineries.

This is why the price of natural gas is closely correlated with the price of fertilizer.  At the start of the Russia and Ukraine fiasco when the US started supplying Europe with natural gas, fertilizer prices in North America tripled.  Every one of those tall fertilizer silos you see at various farms became worth a house.

If you want to make fertilizer, then you need a source of hydrogen.  Electrolysis is not economical, but there are high temperature water cracking processes which could be powered by a nuclear reactor if you want green fertilizer.

What happened not too long ago in Sri Lanka when they forced replacement of petrochemical sourced fertilizers with natural ones demonstrates the problem.  They lost 50% (?) of their food production.

Having an ongoing War didn't really help.

[NiHaoMike]

I believe we have passed the point where industrial farming IS required to feed the planet already.

It would help to get rid of the factory farms that make comparatively little food for all the resources they use, replace them with sustainable (or at least "less unsustainable") farms.

[coppice]

I believe we have passed the point where industrial farming IS required to feed the planet already.

It would help to get rid of the factory farms that make comparatively little food for all the resources they use, replace them with sustainable (or at least "less unsustainable") farms.

We haven't had a sustainable farm for 10,000 years. Those super fertile cradles of civilisation we learned about in school history lessons are just that - history,.The more you try to approach sustainable the less the farm produces. This is a bit of a problem in a world with 8 billion people.

[NiHaoMike]

Changing the process to a more efficient one goes a long way. Growing crops to run a factory farm that converts that to food at around a 10% efficiency is a poor use of resources, instead it makes more sense to grow crops that can be directly used as food.

[Njk]

We haven't had a sustainable farm for 10,000 years. Those super fertile cradles of civilisation we learned about in school history lessons are just that - history,.The more you try to approach sustainable the less the farm produces. This is a bit of a problem in a world with 8 billion people.

That's the problem that remains unsolved for 10,000 years. Even if you reduce the number dramatically in one way or another, under favorable conditions it will start growing again resulting in the same overcrowded world.

[Ranayna]

Jeez, this may not be the most derailed thread on the internet that i have read, but ist surely is up there, especially considering how short it is

[SiliconWizard]

We haven't had a sustainable farm for 10,000 years. Those super fertile cradles of civilisation we learned about in school history lessons are just that - history,.The more you try to approach sustainable the less the farm produces. This is a bit of a problem in a world with 8 billion people.

That's the problem that remains unsolved for 10,000 years. Even if you reduce the number dramatically in one way or another, under favorable conditions it will start growing again resulting in the same overcrowded world.

A significant increase in efficiency for energy production and food production would both result in population increase. Yes. They do already explain the growth over the past 2 centuries. Whether the methods were "sustainable" is another story, but efficiency dramatically increased at this point in history, and the rest follows.