wwf:
almost 80% of the world’s soybean crop is fed to livestock, especially for beef, chicken, egg and dairy production

ussoy:
Poultry and livestock feed make up 97 percent of soybean meal used in the U.S.

united soybean board:
According to a study funded by the soy checkoff, the soybean meal fed in the U.S. goes to several segments of animal agriculture.
Poultry eats about 64 percent.1
Pigs consume nearly 24 percent.1
Beef and dairy cattle use just over 10 percent.1

LINKOS: jinak ja to reseni samozrejme mam v tech sirokejch obrysech a investuju nemaly prostredky do overeni nekterejch teorii. mluveni o bullshitu si nech na dobu az se budem bavit o tom co delame, protoze zatimco ja delam, ty plkas.

LINKOS: jakej bullshit prosim? muzes specifikovat co to ma byt?

obrovsky uzemi jsou nevyuzity na svuj produkcni potencial, protoze potrebujou daleko vic bylozravcu, ktery bez problemu uzivej, pokud se managujou specifickym zpusobem, pokud mame omezeny uzemi, navrhuju ho vyuzit maximalne produktivne a ne jim mrhat.

PETER_PAN: jo a kukurice, podobne jako soja, jde podle me predevsim prasatum. takze jezte prasata, jste tak efektivni na plochu, a to je prece to co chceme, nebo ne?

kravam se ta kukurice da pridavat, ale je to doplnek, hlavni objem toho co potrebujou snist je to, co je pro nas a pro nebylozravce to marginalni, nezajimavy - travy, slama, etc.

a jde tu ilustrovat to uvazovani o "plose" a produktivite na plochu. takze vypestujeme s patricnym zazemim a supportem 38 tun kukurice, a to jde na vykrm. pak je nejakek konverzni pomer toho systemu, a mame maso. rekneme, ze stejny mnozstvi masa bylozrvacu ziskame z nasobne vetsi plochy, treba 7 krat vetsi. takze jsme rekneme "usetrili" 85 procent plochy. co budeme delat v tom zbytku? jak ho budeme managovat? ... z hlediska stability ekosystemu a klimatu to v principu musime delat regenerativne. a pak je jedno, zda je to ekosystem produkcni ci ne. nicmene na tech 15 procentech kukurice delame opravdu solidni destrukci.

cili pokud bychom si meli vybrat, meli bychom v te jizni americe spis pestovat soju nez chovat skot, protoze je to efektivnejsi zpusob produkce masa.
:)

TADEAS: Souhlas.
Jestli chces 1 cislo na hrani, tak produkce kukurice v evropskych podminkach je cca 38tun/ha rocne celkove rostlinne biomasy, u vhodne odrudy prakticky cele vhodne pro fermentacni silaz. Temer nic vynosnejsiho nelze pestovat, bohuzel eroze pudy v pripade kukurice je fakt velka. Jsou zavedeny ty likity sklonu, pasy kolem pole atp., ale stejne to neni idealni.

LINKOS: ad "Ty to řešení taky nemáš jen se stále schováváš za pár frází."

sice ho nemam, ale delam to. takze mam skin in the game asi nekonecnekrat vetsi nez vsichni tluchubove okolo.


ad "Získávat krmivo pro krávu je efektivnější minimálně na plochu dělat to intenzivně, když budou krávy na pastve".

co je "na pastve"? pokud myslis holisticky managovanou pastvu (interakci bylozravci-traviny), tj. regenerativni praktiku, ktera typicky navysuje produktivitu toho ekosystemu (primarni produkci konzumovanou bylozravcema), tak podle dosavadniho monitoringu to vypada, ze ta produktivita se slutecne navysuje. ze stada/stad, ktery takhle pusobej muzes odebirat nejaky mnozstvi zvirat kazdej rok a to je produkce masa z takhle managovanyho ekosystemu.

vs. s tim chces srovnat zvirata zavreny nekde a ekosystem managovanej strojem - tak to myslis? tzn. jsi napr. u toho, co rikal peter pan - vypestujes kukurici (input je palivo, stroje, hnojivo, pripadne nejakej biocid), tu zkrmis, resp. konvertujes na biomasu toho zvirete. takhle to myslis? je mozny, ze takhle dostanes vic ty cilovy biomasy (masa). to nevim, mozna jo, musel bych videt nejaky vypocty. (mas?)

a ted jde o to, na co cilis, co chces (z hlediska managementu ekosystemu, z hlediska naplneni kvality zivota, stravy). pokud optimalizujes na produkci na hektar a to je jedinej parametr, vyjde ti neco, a napr. ti muze vyjit, ze budes mit kravin a k tomu kukurici na orny pude. sireji se musis ptat: co tk znamena pro talhle mangovanej ekosystem? jde to delat donekonecna? budujes pudu? ... samozrejme te to zajimat nemusi, coz je zhusta stav ve kterym jsme.

...

btw a "efektivita na plochu" je neco na co cilime? proc? mame malo prostoru?

podle me se k tomuhle kriteriu dostavame v tom uvazovani o intenzivnim indistrialnim managementu, kterej ale je destruktivni pro ekosystem. pokud uvazujeme tak, ze nase pusobeni v ekosystemu nemusi v praxi nijak tomu eoosystemu skodit, naopak ho podporuje, pak zadna svazanost omezenym pusobenim "na plochu" podle me neni.

LINKOS: soja podle me neni pro kravy ve velkochovech, zkusit co vygooglis, tady treba neco pro UK

Are dairy cows and livestock behind the growth of soya in South America? - Sustainable Food Trust - Sustainable Food Trust
https://sustainablefoodtrust.org/articles/dairy-cows-livestock-behind-growth-soya-south-america/

Soy meal – 1.1 million tonnes (35% of total soy imports; 48.7% of soy meal) is fed to livestock (approximately 90% of it to pigs and poultry and farmed fish); 1.16 million tonnes is used as flour improvers, included in pet food and used in a wide range of industrial products including paint, pharmaceuticals and in the production and use of asphalt.

TADEAS: TADEAS: ehm, ona ta sója z jižní Ameriky jaksi není určena pro lidskou populaci, ale právě pro ty krávy ve velkochovech. Nevím jestli jen zkoušíš demagogii, nebo jestli ti jen chybí znalosti.
Ty to řešení taky nemáš jen se stále schováváš za pár frází.
To co se ti pokoušel vysvětlil je právě ten point co jsem zkoušel už několikrát já. Získávat krmivo pro krávu je efektivnější minimálně na plochu dělat to intenzivně, když budou krávy na pastve, nemůžeš očekávat, že dostaneš že stejného počtu ha stejně množství živin.

Don't believe hydrogen and nuclear hype – they can’t get us to net zero carbon by 2050 | Energy | The Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/mar/16/hydrogen-nuclear-net-zero-carbon-renewables

there will need to be a complete revolution in the way in which hydrogen is produced. As it is, 98% of the 115m tonnes used globally is “grey hydrogen”, made from natural gas or coal, that emits around 830m tonnes of CO2 per annum – 2% of total global greenhouse gas emissions. Beyond that, there’s a tiny amount of so-called “blue hydrogen” – essentially grey hydrogen but with its CO2 emissions captured and stored – and an even tinier amount of “green hydrogen” from electrolysing water, both of which are much more expensive than the climate-wrecking grey hydrogen.

The gulf between that current reality, one rarely mentioned by hydrogen enthusiasts, and the prospect of readily available and affordable green hydrogen that could help us get to net zero, is absolutely vast.

Don’t get me wrong: we will indeed need significant volumes of green hydrogen and it’s good that the government has set an ambitious target for 2030, in the hope that this will significantly reduce the costs of electrolysis to create it. But we need to be clear about what that green hydrogen should be used for: not for electricity; not for heating homes and non-domestic buildings; and not for cars, where electric vehicles will always be better. Instead we will need it for what are called the “hard-to-abate” sectors: for steel – replacing carbon-intensive coking coal – cement and shipping.

...

Much of the hype for hydrogen is coming from the oil and gas sector, in the hope that gullible politicians, seduced by an unattainable vision of limitless green hydrogen, will subsidise the vast investments needed to capture the emissions from gas-powered hydrogen. Their motivation couldn’t be clearer: to postpone the inevitable decline of their industry.

The nuclear industry is also desperate to get in on that game. One has to admire its capacity to pivot opportunistically. In February, the Nuclear Industry Council (made up of both industry and government representatives in the UK) published a shiny new Hydrogen Roadmap, exploring how either large-scale nuclear or small modular reactors could generate both the electricity and the heat needed to produce large amounts of green hydrogen. But the entire plan is premised on spectacular and totally speculative reductions in the cost of electrolysis.

Rather than being the solution we have been waiting for, this nuclear/hydrogen development would actually be a disastrous techno-fix. Low-carbon nuclear power will always be massively more expensive than renewables and we can never build enough reactors to replace those coming offline over the next decade. We also know that producing hydrogen is always going to be very expensive. The truth is, you need a lot of electricity to produce not a lot of hydrogen. All of which makes pipe-dreams about substituting hydrogen for conventional gas in the UK’s gas grid, or of producing millions of tonnes of blue hydrogen, look almost entirely absurd.

tady jeste pro zajemce o prirodu, evolucni biologii a rovnovahu zivota. po 40ti minutach to ma vcelku prekvapivej zvrat, ze s globalnim oteplenim nakonec nas nejvetsi problem muzou bejt houby. vic prozrazovat nebudu.

Jak houby stvořily náš svět Dokument by Tomáš Cahel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AD4FB12E0EA

SHEFIK: vidis, tak mozna tam ta soja nehraje takovou roli jak jsem si myslel a rovnou z toho delaj pastviny. ted uz jen vysvetlit lidem, ze problem neni ten skot, ale lidi, kteri udelaj ty rozhodnuti na zaklade reduktivnich zpusobu rozhodovani :)