Society/Culture Will you eat it?

[Power Raid]

I’d eat it but it will be interesting if the animals become near extinct without a need for their existence

 

[quotemokc]

The indigenous Americans had a use for every single part of the bison. Nothing went to waste.

Look at the indigenous Australians who hunted whales with orcas. When the orcas had took the liver, the hey would cut holes for the elders to climb into and treat arthritis. They then had uses for everything. What wasn't used, returned to the food chain.

The same with kangaroos and possums.

Pretty sure aboriginals never hunted whales

 

[Seeds]

More trees, more burnies, more carbon in the air, therefore, more emissions.

Ok you really need to learn how the carbon cycle works. Trees do not create carbon. They suck it up. If you have a tree but then it burns down to ash then you have no more emissions then if you had no tree. Even with extreme bush fires not all trees will burn to ash. Thus emissions will always be lower with planting trees. Always. Before making judgements learn how things work first.

 

[Seeds]

I’d eat it but it will be interesting if the animals become near extinct without a need for their existence

Childrens petting farms will ensure that never happens. Plus pigs and chickens will become pets.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

Ok you really need to learn how the carbon cycle works. Trees do not create carbon. They suck it up. If you have a tree but then it burns down to ash then you have no more emissions then if you had no tree. Even with extreme bush fires not all trees will burn to ash. Thus emissions will always be lower with planting trees. Always. Before making judgements learn how things work first.

How much carbon got dumped into the atmosphere during the recent bushfires?

Australia's bushfires are believed to have spewed as much as two-thirds of the nation's annual carbon dioxide emissions in just the past three months, with experts warning forests may take more than 100 years to absorb what's been released so far this season.

Smoke on that!

 

[Frank Bunn]

Ok you really need to learn how the carbon cycle works. Trees do not create carbon. They suck it up. If you have a tree but then it burns down to ash then you have no more emissions then if you had no tree. Even with extreme bush fires not all trees will burn to ash. Thus emissions will always be lower with planting trees. Always. Before making judgements learn how things work first.

Planting trees that might one day set on fire is about carbon neutral. They photosynthesise which absorbs CO2 but also respire which emits C02. If it burns down you are back to point zero. In Australia we would be best off by not planting trees that explode when set on fire. Native trees look minging anyway.

If you think the overseas tree planting carbon credits schemes are not totally rorted then I've got a bridge to sell you.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Pretty sure aboriginals never hunted whales

Ever been to Eden on the NSW south coast?

The Aboriginal whalers of Eden

The Aboriginal people of south east New South Wales had a special relationship with whales and dolphins that was to become the foundation of the whaling methods used by European Australians at Eden's Twofold Bay. Visitors to the now popular whale watching destination are told of the legend of...

www.abc.net.au

The Aboriginal people of south east New South Wales had a special relationship with whales and dolphins that was to become the foundation of the whaling methods used by European Australians at Eden's Twofold Bay. Visitors to the now popular whale watching destination are told of the legend of Old Tom and the Killer Whale pack that worked with whaling crews by herding humpback and southern right whales so they could be harpooned. This relationship with killer whales didn't come about by chance, it was a relationship that preceded European settlement over many generations...

and

History of Whaling in Twofold Bay

On the South side of Twofold bay in Eden, hidden in the Ben Boyd National Park, there is a tiny cottage. This cottage 'Loch Garrah' is the last building standing in what used to be a thriving whaling industry. Twofold bay has always been synonymous with whaling, from the Yuin people who were...

historycooperative.org

...Since Indigenous Australians traveled through the land, the Yuin people benefitted from the natural hunting strategies of the local Killer whales. The orcas were adapted into their belief systems and traditions as the orcas would regularly herd migrating baleen whales into the bay and the whales would commonly strand themselves on beaches to escape the killers.

As a result, the Yuin people believed that the orcas were deliberately providing food for the tribes and that the killers were the reincarnated spirits of tribal members. Early European explorers documented rituals where the Yuin’s would “call” the orcas to drive whales to shore. Whale oil played a part in tribal rituals up and down the east coast.

And then came the colony. The first European whaler in Twofold Bay, Eden was Thomas Raine in 1828. Establishing the area as a well known hunting ground and the bay as a wonderfully large natural harbour for ships. This encouraged the urban settlement of Eden in 1843...

It seems unique to the local area but there you have it.

 

[Power Raid]

Ok you really need to learn how the carbon cycle works. Trees do not create carbon. They suck it up. If you have a tree but then it burns down to ash then you have no more emissions then if you had no tree. Even with extreme bush fires not all trees will burn to ash. Thus emissions will always be lower with planting trees. Always. Before making judgements learn how things work first.

adding to that...........

maintaining root systems in the ground at all times, maintains a healthy micro-organism system in the soil. In an unhealthy soil system ruined by fertilisers, anti-fungal etc the carbon content is less than 1% and often 0.4% to 0.7% (ie the wheat belt). In a healthy system, this is 3% to 15%.

So even with a bush fire, the major carbon footprint is not effected. better still to bush fire won't be as bad, as healthy carbon rich soil maintains a higher water content and thus more moisture in the trees. This increased moisture content helps reduce the heat of a fire.

Further with better soils, trees other than fennel rich eucalyptus can survive. Further reducing the fuel loads.


This is why better land care management is important and moving away from fertilisers and fire back burn management is important. Note fuel loads need to be managed but using biological solutions such as livestock is better than fire. This will help return the land to that pre aboriginals and their fire management techniques that changed the eco-system to what we are familiar with today.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

adding to that...........

maintaining root systems in the ground at all times, maintains a healthy micro-organism system in the soil. In an unhealthy soil system ruined by fertilisers, anti-fungal etc the carbon content is less than 1% and often 0.4% to 0.7% (ie the wheat belt). In a healthy system, this is 3% to 15%.

So even with a bush fire, the major carbon footprint is not effected. better still to bush fire won't be as bad, as healthy carbon rich soil maintains a higher water content and thus more moisture in the trees. This increased moisture content helps reduce the heat of a fire.

Further with better soils, trees other than fennel rich eucalyptus can survive. Further reducing the fuel loads.


This is why better land care management is important and moving away from fertilisers and fire back burn management is important. Note fuel loads need to be managed but using biological solutions such as livestock is better than fire. This will help return the land to that pre aboriginals and their fire management techniques that changed the eco-system to what we are familiar with today.

We no longer have livestock for the fuel load, this thread is about the end of livestock.

 

[Power Raid]

We no longer have livestock for the fuel load, this thread is about the end of livestock.

you can't have healthy soils, according to environmental soil engineers, without them.

perhaps they are needed, even if we don't slaughter them for their meat

 

[swingdog]

you can't have healthy soils, according to environmental soil engineers, without them.

perhaps they are needed, even if we don't slaughter them for their meat

They'll probably become more of an expensive niche product: "true meat" etc.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

you can't have healthy soils, according to environmental soil engineers, without them.

perhaps they are needed, even if we don't slaughter them for their meat

They'll probably become more of an expensive niche product: "true meat" etc.

Or maybe the remaining cattle go on the lamb and become outlaws, rebelling against the system.

Someone could maybe pen a ditty about them.

 

[quotemokc]

Ever been to Eden on the NSW south coast?



and



It seems unique to the local area but there you have it.

They didn't actually 'hunt' whales until the Europeans got there.

Since Indigenous Australians traveled through the land, the Yuin people benefitted from the natural hunting strategies of the local Killer whales. The orcas were adapted into their belief systems and traditions as the orcas would regularly herd migrating baleen whales into the bay and the whales would commonly strand themselves on beaches to escape the killers.

As a result, the Yuin people believed that the orcas were deliberately providing food for the tribes and that the killers were the reincarnated spirits of tribal members. Early European explorers documented rituals where the Yuin’s would “call” the orcas to drive whales to shore. Whale oil played a part in tribal rituals up and down the east coast.

 

[Patrick Bullet]

I’d eat it but it will be interesting if the animals become near extinct without a need for their existence

They will. Just like most of the others we didn't need.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

More trees, more burnies, more carbon in the air, therefore, more emissions.

not quite

initially yes, but when the regrowth comes in it soaks up more carbon dioxide than the old forest used to. US scientists estimate that by the time regrowth is done, its a net neutral impact

there is a question if this math still applies with mega fires like this season, but the data is not yet in (obviously) about how much regrowth is possible after these burns

 

[Seeds]

not quite

initially yes, but when the regrowth comes in it soaks up more carbon dioxide than the old forest used to. US scientists estimate that by the time regrowth is done, its a net neutral impact

there is a question if this math still applies with mega fires like this season, but the data is not yet in (obviously) about how much regrowth is possible after these burns

Not initially yes. If those trees never existed then the emissions would already be in the air.

 

[Seeds]

Planting trees that might one day set on fire is about carbon neutral. They photosynthesise which absorbs CO2 but also respire which emits C02. If it burns down you are back to point zero. In Australia we would be best off by not planting trees that explode when set on fire. Native trees look minging anyway.

If you think the overseas tree planting carbon credits schemes are not totally rorted then I've got a bridge to sell you.

You are making an argument to grow trees. How you conclude we should not is bizarre.

 

[Seeds]

you can't have healthy soils, according to environmental soil engineers, without them.

perhaps they are needed, even if we don't slaughter them for their meat

So for the millions of year before live stock came to australia we had non health soils? Why exactly do we need healthy soils?

 

[Seeds]

How much carbon got dumped into the atmosphere during the recent bushfires?

Australia's bushfires are believed to have spewed as much as two-thirds of the nation's annual carbon dioxide emissions in just the past three months, with experts warning forests may take more than 100 years to absorb what's been released so far this season.

Smoke on that!

How are you not understanding this? If the trees didnt exist all that carbon and a whole lot more would be in the air already. When trees regrow they suck that carbon back up. But if we dont re grow them then the carbon stays in the air.

Climate change is not driven by emissions change. Its driven by overall emissions levels. The changes are irrelevant.

Ps. Bushfires are natural. Why would you want to stop them anyway? We just need to stop living in the country. Guess what. Cell based meat means less people need to live in rural areas.

 

[Bollox]

Ever been to Eden on the NSW south coast?
and
It seems unique to the local area but there you have it.

I think u missed the part about it being a "local legend".
Never mind. Its often how "facts" are determined these days.
Fact. Robin Hood was said to have an 11 inch wang. Hard to believe but there u go. Good enough for me.

 

[Bollox]

Free range baby ! Anything else is an abomination.
If it aint grown or sourced as nature intended, don't eat it.

Perhaps just treat it the same way the greenies treated GM crops.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Not initially yes. If those trees never existed then the emissions would already be in the air.

Of course not initially, which is why I said it was over the course of the regrowth

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

not quite

initially yes, but when the regrowth comes in it soaks up more carbon dioxide than the old forest used to. US scientists estimate that by the time regrowth is done, its a net neutral impact

there is a question if this math still applies with mega fires like this season, but the data is not yet in (obviously) about how much regrowth is possible after these burns

What I have read from European scientists is just guestimating but they say it could take decades before the emissions from this current fire season is brought back to neutral.

Australia fires pushing Earth's limits as scientists fear long-term effects of emissions

Researchers are concerned that huge pulses of carbon emissions from devastating wildfires could overwhelm natural reservoirs that store carbon dioxide.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

How are you not understanding this? If the trees didnt exist all that carbon and a whole lot more would be in the air already. When trees regrow they suck that carbon back up. But if we dont re grow them then the carbon stays in the air.

Climate change is not driven by emissions change. Its driven by overall emissions levels. The changes are irrelevant.

Ps. Bushfires are natural. Why would you want to stop them anyway? We just need to stop living in the country. Guess what. Cell based meat means less people need to live in rural areas.

and these massive fires are dumping above average levels into the atmosphere which could take decades to be fully absorbed.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

What I have read from European scientists is just guestimating but they say it could take decades before the emissions from this current fire season is brought back to neutral.

Australia fires pushing Earth's limits as scientists fear long-term effects of emissions

Researchers are concerned that huge pulses of carbon emissions from devastating wildfires could overwhelm natural reservoirs that store carbon dioxide.

www.nbcnews.com

What I said came from an npr discussion 3-4 weeks ago, two forestry scientists in the USA , and two from Australia (one ANU and the other one from Cairns)

The initial amount is immense (it's basically doubled our normal CO2 emissions), but examining regrowth here and in the USA indicates most of that is clawed back due to the accelerated growth of new plants and trees.

The question on mega fires is how much plant material will grow back given the devastation. Their answer was there hasn't been enough experience with these fires yet to make the call