• 0 Posts
  • 33 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 2nd, 2023

help-circle
  • Missed a big one.

    The U.S. is mostly a net importer of beef. The herd size normally does not satisfy the market and it requires significant imports to make up the difference.

    The U.S. herd size is cyclical and historically relatively easy to predict. So producers/exporters/importers had a good guess roughly a year or more in advanced when prices would climb or fall.

    https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/animal-products/cattle-beef/sector-at-a-glance

    Toss in some dumbass who fucks up trade with tariffs and the exporting counties can no longer predict the market. Then TACO happens or doesn’t happen at random. Uncertainty in the market trend means that producers are unwilling to increase their herd size to adapt, anywhere.

    The safest bet is to sell down their herd size at the high prices to capture the margin now. Then maintain a smaller herd for the duration of the uncertainty.

    Dairy farmers are pretty much the only ones that are doing quite well right now. Feed inputs are low, butcher prices for their cows is high and sexed semen means they can cross 1/2 their herd with beef breeds to maximize their profit. Day old 1/2 bred calf’s are selling for astronomical prices right now. Selling off their herd and retiring early is a viable option right now as well.











  • Not really. Although the genetic diversity across the entire continent is higher, limits to mate selection is common. Location, culture, economics, language, etc, all limit the genetic pool that people have to choose a mate from. So in-group inbreeding is relatively common.

    Humans have lived in smaller groups with limited mate choice for most of our evolutionary history. A lower level of inbreeding improves fecundity (around 4th cousins). Once the inbreeding coefficient gets to around 2nd cousins, that’s when problems arise. This happens often in small tribes.

    Smaller polygamous groups quickly develop issues with inbreeding. The entire group often has an inbreeding coefficient around 1st cousins or even siblings (example - polygamous Mormons).

    Now Uganda is a bit different because the polygamous group is large. This limits inbreeding effects.




  • Agriculture is water intensive. The more land we use, the more water we need. Whether from the sky or from a irrigation canal, it’s still water used to grow crops not native environments. Reducing our land footprint reduces our total water usage. That’s what matters, not the per hectare usage.

    Corn and wheat - just irrigating itincreases the average yield by 2x to 10x depending on the region.

    If you’ve never been in a 50 hectare greenhouse it’s hard to imagine (they are 12-15m tall). These greenhouses are all in soil as well. The larger a greenhouse is the more efficient it is as maintaining temperature. You can get 2-3 cycles per year in them depending on light levels. So the yields are irrigated + 50% per cycle and 2-3 cycles per year instead of 1 cycle. Supplemental lighting can push it to a solid 3 cycles.



  • Irrigated and/or protected culture… Protected culture for the crops that make sense. Irrigated in for all others.

    We farm the way we do because historically we go through periods of innovation then stagnation. When the way we farm no longer works and we either rapidly innovate again or the civilization flounders and dies due to famine and war.

    “Enormously expensive,” it’s all in perspective. It’s damn cheap compared to the cost of the environmental damage we are currently doing. FYI The equipment and technology already exist to do it as well.


  • The best thing for the environment and soil health is to not farm it. There is no such thing as environmentally friendly agriculture. It is always destructive.

    We farm the land we do because it’s profitable.

    Irrigated acres make up less than 7% of the land area used for agriculture but produce 65% of the total yield.

    Protected culture (greenhouses, high tunnels, etc) produce 10x to 20x more per acre than open field production.

    Increasing our water storage and transport infrastructure on a massive scale, combined with expansion of protected culture could reduce our agricultural land requirements by as much as 80%. All wiithout changing our diets.

    Imagine 80% of the farmland rewilded? Massive stretches of native ecosystems rebounding without fertilizer or sprays.


  • I think that the data Ukraine has on Russian losses is better than in any previous conflict. The drones are constantly flying over the battlefield recording.

    I also think that Ukraine has significant political reasons for attempting to be reasonably accurate. They rely on NATO for money, weapons, and supplies. They need to provide an reasonably accurate representation of what they are doing with the resources to keep their suppliers happy.

    It doesn’t need to be exact, just a reasonable estimate made in good faith.