RADIQAL: Ano, asi jsem moc naivní.

PETER_PAN: vypinat kameru?

SHEFIK: To je chujovina..

WOODMAKER: Tak že videokonference má větší uhlíkovou stopu než audiokonference snad chápe každý, kdo má něco málo v hlavě a současně chápe, že neexistuje perpetuum mobile.

DZODZO: Ale ten článek byl o vyrobeném uhlíku z videokonference vs. z benzínového auta. A hybrid do zásuvky dokáže jet i za nula litrů benzínu, takže proč zrovna ty cca 4 litry?

GLOBETROTTER: fuha, neviem kde si to vycital z toho co som pisal, ja som sa zaoberal iba spotrebou, ze je mozne dosiahnut 4l/100 pokial jazdis pluginom po meste a prevazne na elektriku, o uhlikovej stope tam nebola rec

DZODZO: Takže u hybrid.auta se uhlíková stopa počítá jen z fosilních paliv, kdežto v IT i z elektřiny (nebo z čeho ta videokonference ten CO2 vyrobí)? Takhle jsi tom chtěl říci?

GLOBETROTTER: Trochu se namáhá přemejšlet, jak to myslíš, a rád se nechám vtáhnout do debaty.

Co je podle tebe účelem?

Chápu, že smyslem článku není poukazování na sporné body indické agrární reformy. Jde tedy o způsob, jakým GT dělá influence marketing?

Poetic Justic Foundation zní dost podezřele a že se chytla Riana a GT by mohlo něco znamenat...

eco-phenomenology of pasture cropping
// why the hell not :D

Ethical Acknowledgment of Soil Ecosystem Integrity amid Agricultural Production in Australia | Environmental Humanities | Duke University Press
https://read.dukeupress.edu/environmental-humanities/article/12/1/267/165259

This article focuses on the concept of soil integrity and its significance for farmers’ ethical relationship to soils in everyday practice, using the case study of pasture cropping, an Australian form of agriculture that extends no-till methods to embrace ecological relationships within and beyond the soil. Prioritizing the integrity of soil ecosystems often requires reconceiving what soil is and should be. Soil can be difficult to see as ethically significant partly because it often appears as a granular bulk good, seemingly featureless and fungible. To counteract this, farmers who care for soil integrity use various heuristic and aesthetic strategies to render soil integrity more perceptible and intelligible. The author considers how a keener perception of soil integrity may enable greater attunement toward the soil condition, acknowledgement of soil distress, and thus ethical responsiveness. The article considers this through a broader discussion of phenomenological ethics.

TADEAS

TADEAS:

Does animal dung and urine provide the N and P needed for humification? No. As explained above, the availabilities of N and the P are increased through the activation of microbial processes supported by plant root exudates. However, appropriate grazing management is required to optimise the exudation process. And because animals and soils have co-evolved, soil microbes respond to signals from shed animal hair, saliva, dung and urine, all of which stimulate soil biological activity and indirectly increase the availability of N and P. Do we need to replace the minerals exported in product? No. The minerals removed in farm products are a tiny fraction of the total amount present in soil. A standard soil test - even a test of totals - is a very poor indicator of what is actually present. X-ray diffraction (XRD) is the only method that provides a full mineralogical analysis of the soil. A tissue test is the best indicator of whether those minerals are actually getting into the plants. Again, pasture diversity and appropriate grazing management are the best means to ensure the soil microbiome is receiving the energy it needs to activate the biological processes that underpin the availability of essential minerals and trace elements - and of course, increase the level of stable soil carbon. All are linked.

To return to your question re Rattan Lal, the application of high rates of water-soluble N and/or P reduces root exudation, inhibiting the biological processes necessary for the acquisition of minerals and trace elements, resulting in mineral-deficient plants and animals. Rattan Lal was recently awarded the $250,000 World Food Prize. In previous years the award has gone to Monsanto, Syngenta and the European Federation of Biotechnology (genetically modified crops).