4 ms·

Sure thing! Here's a link from Oregon State giving a brief overview of the usage of fossil fuels in agriculture: http://people.oregonstate.edu/~muirp/fossfuel

Sure thing! Here's a link from Oregon State giving a brief overview of the usage of fossil fuels in agriculture: http://people.oregonstate.edu/~muirp/fossfuel.htm http://people.oregonstate.edu/~muirp/fossfuel.htm Basically, we use nitrogen fertilizers derived from oil, pesticides derived from oil, harvesters which run on oil, herbicides derived from oil, irrigation which runs on oil, and the transporting infrastructure to delivery all of that food. As for the taking away something when we substitute something else: Biological organisms have a general amount of energy their capable of taking in and processing. Whenever you substitute another gene "part" into an organism, you lose your net output of energy. It means that "cost" of energy is spent in producing that side effect, and not elsewhere. IE not in defense against other organisms. As for the "brittleness" of genes: The entire point of sexual reproduction is to make it so there is as much diversity in the genome as possible. This makes it so one bacteria or virus can't unlock the genome of an entire species and wipe it all out. I think this also explains the last piece. We're exposed to a virus getting the code for a specific piece of that gene and wiping out all of that system very rapidly.

burningion 13y ago
Being downvoted for not enough citations, I guess: For the energy load incurred by adding to the gene sequence: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/073497509500004A http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/07349750950... Brittleness of genes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_diversity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_diversity Potato famine in general.
dredmorbius 13y ago
And the fuel and energy use don't end with transportation. You've got food processing (canning, drying, milling, and other processing), refrigeration, and packaging as well. I suppose you could toss grocery store and restaurant operations into the mix as well. And the real multiplier for inputs: raising livestock takes vast inputs. Even if you don't eat soy directly, if you're eating beef, pork, poultry, or dairy, you're eating food very likely raised in large part based on soy protein. (And just for the record: I'm an omnivore).
dredmorbius 13y ago
Oh, and meta note: that OSU page (apparently created using Adobe PageMill) uses graphics to generate bulleted lists. fbog.
antris 13y ago
Basically, we use nitrogen fertilizers derived from oil, pesticides derived from oil, harvesters which run on oil, herbicides derived from oil, irrigation which runs on oil, and the transporting infrastructure to delivery all of that food. My question was more about the connection to Borlaug. What does Borlaug have to do with fossil fuel usage. The link you gave does not make this connection at all, and neither does the Wikipedia article. How Borlaug could have fed these these people without using fossil fuels and how did he advocate fossil fuels specifically as a technology? Whenever you substitute another gene "part" into an organism, you lose your net output of energy Organisms get their energy from the sun through photosynthesis. It has nothing to do with their genes. The entire point of sexual reproduction is to make it so there is as much diversity in the genome as possible. This makes it so one bacteria or virus can't unlock the genome of an entire species and wipe it all out. I think this also explains the last piece. We're exposed to a virus getting the code for a specific piece of that gene and wiping out all of that system very rapidly. Sounds like the case you are making is that there is a higher risk of losing the whole yield at once. While that may be true, what you are describing is a risk. Considering that GMO plants make considerably more yield, the farmer has to weigh the risks and benefits. This is common to for all businesses. GMO yield would be more expensive than non-GMO yields if the risks were too high. Farmers aren't stupid.

burningion 13y ago

Being downvoted for not enough citations, I guess: For the energy load incurred by adding to the gene sequence: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/073497509500004A http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/07349750950... Brittleness of genes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_diversity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_diversity Potato famine in general.

dredmorbius 13y ago

And the fuel and energy use don't end with transportation. You've got food processing (canning, drying, milling, and other processing), refrigeration, and packaging as well. I suppose you could toss grocery store and restaurant operations into the mix as well. And the real multiplier for inputs: raising livestock takes vast inputs. Even if you don't eat soy directly, if you're eating beef, pork, poultry, or dairy, you're eating food very likely raised in large part based on soy protein. (And just for the record: I'm an omnivore).

dredmorbius 13y ago

Oh, and meta note: that OSU page (apparently created using Adobe PageMill) uses graphics to generate bulleted lists. fbog.

antris 13y ago

Basically, we use nitrogen fertilizers derived from oil, pesticides derived from oil, harvesters which run on oil, herbicides derived from oil, irrigation which runs on oil, and the transporting infrastructure to delivery all of that food. My question was more about the connection to Borlaug. What does Borlaug have to do with fossil fuel usage. The link you gave does not make this connection at all, and neither does the Wikipedia article. How Borlaug could have fed these these people without using fossil fuels and how did he advocate fossil fuels specifically as a technology? Whenever you substitute another gene "part" into an organism, you lose your net output of energy Organisms get their energy from the sun through photosynthesis. It has nothing to do with their genes. The entire point of sexual reproduction is to make it so there is as much diversity in the genome as possible. This makes it so one bacteria or virus can't unlock the genome of an entire species and wipe it all out. I think this also explains the last piece. We're exposed to a virus getting the code for a specific piece of that gene and wiping out all of that system very rapidly. Sounds like the case you are making is that there is a higher risk of losing the whole yield at once. While that may be true, what you are describing is a risk. Considering that GMO plants make considerably more yield, the farmer has to weigh the risks and benefits. This is common to for all businesses. GMO yield would be more expensive than non-GMO yields if the risks were too high. Farmers aren't stupid.