Posts by Farmer Green
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Speaker: Low-quality language on immigration, in reply to mark taslov,
I guess we will have to wait and see whether promises to cut immigration , for whatever reason, is a successful election strategy.
If it is a good strategy, would promises to see every NZer given the opportunity to develop to their full potential, via some serious attention to education , be an even better electoral strategy? -
Speaker: Low-quality language on immigration, in reply to linger,
NZ ecosystems have not evolved with any ruminants.
And humans neither. Should we all go home?
:-)If the thesis is that we should not grow these ruminant-ready Mediterranean grasses in our Mediterranean climate , then what should we grow?
The grasslands that we now have , co-evolved with ruminants.
We have the grasses . . . .now what? -
Speaker: Low-quality language on immigration, in reply to mark taslov,
we have a relatively minute population dwarfed by our current environmental issues.
Any numbers?
The point might be that NZ produces protein to feed 20 million people. Should we plan to cease exporting food when our population reaches that number?
We could produce just enough for 5 million and enough extra to be able to bring in a few million more tourists.
We've got to sell something as long as we are in debt. -
Speaker: Low-quality language on immigration, in reply to mark taslov,
. Scapegoating immigrants for our incapacity to engage in sound environmental management
I don't see anyone doing that at present. But who knows what inanity is "beyond the pale" during an election campaign?
-
Speaker: Low-quality language on immigration, in reply to Moz,
Here's what I was actually trying to get at:-
"Although all plants photosynthesize, no vegetation type beats grasses, which cover a greater area of the earth’s landmass than any other. And if that wasn’t enough, unlike forests, grasslands store most of the carbon they sequester from the atmosphere deep under the soil surface as organic matter, which actually increases fertility and enhances soil life in countless ways. That is why the great grain growing regions of the world are former grasslands, not forests.
"Grasslands are the most important ecosystem for human civilization.
When healthy, they purify the air, absorb and filter water and allow it to infiltrate back into underground reservoirs, they support immeasurable wildlife and biodiversity, and they build the deepest most fertile soils on the planet.
Grasslands are also home to more than 1 billion people who depend on them for their food and livelihoods."
Alan Savory is saying that if you want to save agriculture , then you must save the grasslands.
The question is :- "why would you want to save agriculture" , right? -
Speaker: Low-quality language on immigration, in reply to Katharine Moody,
From what I can read in the farming and business papers , we are, nationally, at the stage of identifying the most problematic soil/catchment situations which will not meet the national guidelines. And regulating these areas to achieve compliance.
Some soils will always be very "leaky".The proliferation of dairying in the South Island took place in spite of the geography, a consideration of which might have led to the conclusion that some locations were totally unsuitable for some types of food production.
I think that progress on the reduction of human impact is predictably slow , in both urban and rural environments . . . this is a local government function after all.
But for affected farmers, it is a dream shattered. -
Speaker: Low-quality language on immigration, in reply to Moz,
Nah bro, you're not in Africa now.
:-)
The grasslands that we have today in NZ might suit a moa . . . chickens like it.
I was just referring to the phenomenon of the building of productive topsoils by grazing ruminants. It might be the only sustainable lifestyle that Homo sapiens has encountered so far.But I think you meant Eurasia ;-
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/March2012/120327-cattle-traced-back-80-animals
-
Speaker: Low-quality language on immigration, in reply to Moz,
It would be true to say that ruminants have always recycled most of their excretions into the grasslands/soil association which has evolved with them, and which sustains them.
-
Speaker: Low-quality language on immigration, in reply to Moz,
makes as much sense
Do you mean "makes as little sense" ?
The comparison is between two untrue statements.
Can "reducing the environmental impact" ever be enough?
In other words , how far do we want to go in reducing the human footprint , and who decides when enough is enough? -
Speaker: Low-quality language on immigration, in reply to Neil,
And yet Labour are sticking to cutting numbers. Or something, it doesn't seem particularly clear.
A higher population means a greater impact on the environment.
A lesser impact on the environment might be something that the populace believes should be brought about.
Cutting immigration would be easier and cheaper than reducing the impact of the present population.