Pellet stove

Page 2 of 10  


Can you explain to us what hurricanes have to do with reducing carbon dioxide in the air?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

to
decline.
way,
the
the
Aeration absorbs gas into the water....check out you goldfish bowl sometime. Then stop and think how much bigger the bubbler is in a hurricane .a100+ miles wide. Then check out the smog alerts in the Gulf Coastal area for the same period as the hurricanes.

-
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Are you for real? Is smog CO2? CO2 is an odorless, colorless gas that exists all over the earth in a concentration of about 377 parts per million.
My apologies. I thought I was arguing with someone who had a basic understanding of atmospherics.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Obviously it will, since those plants are removing CO2 from the atmosphere.

Speaking of uninformed... where in the world did you get *that* idea?
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
(JoeSixPack) says...

Troll.
--
http://home.teleport.com/~larryc


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSixPack wrote:

Actually much cropland is not covered in vegetation.
Also, modern hybrids have shorter stalks, and thus lay down less carbon per acre than heritage varieties.
Some crops grow more Biomas per acre than others, compare strawberries and Sugarcane...
....Brock.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Brock Ulfsen wrote:

....
Not really, for the most part--hybrid wheat, corn, soybeans all are essentially the same size plants as always. What crops specifically are you thinking of?
Plus, most hybrids are grown in much higher "plants/acre" than were their predecessors--both narrower row spacing as well as plant spacing in order to produce higher net yields... .....
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Duane Bozarth wrote:

Sorghum, wheat, barley, many of the varieties grown in Australia are significantly less that 50cm tall at harvest, as opposed to heritage pure strains many of which stand twice (or three times) as tall. Lots of leaf, big seed heads, very little actual stalk.
....Brock.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Brock Ulfsen wrote:

I'd be interested to see the hybrid data for those--that's far different than US hybrids. Who are the seed suppliers and do they have web presence? Are these produced by the US equivalent of the land-grant universities research programs as were/are many of the new varieties here or by commercial seed growers?
I don't recall <ever> seeing a commercially grown wheat/barley/rye variety that would be much over 3 ft, even going back to old Turkey Red, the original hard red winter wheat brought over in the 1800s. Extremely tall is bad owing to tendency to go down, of course. Very, very short is a problem as well owing to difficulty in cutting w/o getting into the ground or missing the short heads. On the very rare occasion w/ really high moisture years I can recall some years which may have gotten to mid-chest height, but that would be the exception, not the rule.
We've been growing wheat and grain sorghum here since the early 1900s and the pictures back then of harvest w/ teams and stationary thresher don't show a real significant difference in heights from what I recall in the 50s when I first can really remember up to now...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Duane Bozarth wrote:

All the usual suspects. Big global companies, developement is mostly by Deapartment of Primary Industries, lots of local seed companies producing hybrid seed to. Universities have largely been urban until recently, so had little to do with horticulture.

Hmmm, mid-chest would be about right heritage varieties, 1m to 1.5m. Crops growing here are usuall half that high.
Here we go, a traditional variety, 2m (6ft) and a modern hybrid 60cm (2ft).
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/enviro/EnviroRepublish_746022.htm
....Brock.

Pictures of horsedrawn harvesters here show wheat tended to be about 1m tall, definitely over waist height, as opposed to barely knee high for the current varieties I see in paddocks by the hyway.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Brock Ulfsen wrote:

What's with this????

That seems almost incomprehensible that there aren't Ag Departments in at least some of the major Universities, regardless of where they are physically situated. Where are the Vet schools, the Animal Husbandry programs, the Ag Engineers, Milling and Grain experts trained?
There are of course, commercially developed varieties but most US-grown varieties are developed by the various University and Grower-sponsored research organizations. Example facilities in Kansas at Kansas State University include
http://www.k-state.edu/wgrc / http://www.k-state.edu/igp / http://www.k-state.edu/igrow /
Dad did a sponsored Farm Tour to Au and NZ a number of years ago under aegis of US Dept of Ag but other than his tales of visiting and staying w/ various producers around and meetings w/ Wheat Board (or whatever it was called specifically) and other gov't officialdom I don't recall what they saw for the research end.

The "mid-chest" would have been a rare event as I noted, only occurring in very rare growing seasons.

That's going far farther back than what I would consider "traditional"... :)
There's not been much of that type grown in really large quantities for at least a 100 years, at least in the US. I was coming from the frame of reference of when wheat was introduced as a widespread grain crop in the US midwest in the mid-1800s which was primarily w/ the introduction here of hard red winter wheat, specifically Turkey Red.
The Duram wheats are grown farther north and west in the US from where we are located here.

I wouldn't like wheat quite that short for the reasons stated before--would force one to run the combine header nearly on the ground which makes for picking up lots of dirt and wear on the lower carriage in order to not miss the shorter than average heads.
I still think regarding your point regarding the total biomass per acre that the modern planting density compared to such hand sown fields of the reference time frame when such super-tall varieties were predominant will counteract a large amount of the difference in total plant volume.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That's completely wrong. Horticulture largely pertains to urban and commercial plant production for food and aesthetics. Agriculture pertains to rural and commercial food production from plants and animals. Universities are situated in cities, but their agricultural colleges are fully engaged in rural food production in all areas.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Giant plants are not so hard to develop, but that's not usually the goal of plant breeders. The key is the efficiency at which plants convert sunlight, water and nutrients into the final biomass product. There's not much room to improve the efficiency of photosynthesis, it has become very efficient over the last few billion years, and the efficiency of our photovoltaic cells lag behind them quite badly.
Bigger plants take longer to grow, take more water and nutrients, so what's the advantage? When grain is the product, there's usually more to gain by shortening the plant, thereby diverting more of the growing plant's energy to developing the head of grain instead if building large stalks. Nature makes plants tall because they usually have to rise above the competition and capture the precious sunlight. In a field of one type of grain, there's no reason for the plants to compete with each other by being taller.
If bulk biomass is the key, it may not be the best strategy to grow a forest of 12-foot high sugarcane that takes 11 months to grow, when the same biomass equivalent can be delivered from a crop of sugar beet harvested 3 times a year.
There's been considerable research and discussion on these subjects, so I recommend you investigate some of it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSixPack wrote:

All depends...the pumpkin and sunflower foks are kinda' into that...
....
....

I don't think they know anything about that... :) ....

I don't know what you're responding to here...the discussion (sorta' a sidebar, but the immediate discussion) was the height of (primarily) current wheat hybrids as opposed to those of some bygone time--the exact time of "bygone" is now apparently long ago as opposed to (say) early 19th century when really large scale small grain farming became prevalent as I initially assumed.
As a wheat/grain sorghum producer, I naturally got interested in what some others were up to in the same area. I did note that the very short varieties such as Brock is mentioning are shorter than I would prefer to grow simply owing to increased maintenance and wear on harvesting equipment and quite possibly higher loss from missing shorter than average heads.
This all sprang from the observation quite some time ago (in thread life terms) that modern agricultural varieties are much shorter than "traditional" thus reducing total biomass during (particularly) small/cereal grains production. I said I didn't think they had shrunk <all> that much and that higher seeding densities w/ modern practices would compensate for much of the shorter growth anyway.
As at least one counter example, modern hybrid corns are much taller and denser plants than the (American) maize of the native Indians for the most part.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If you didn't know that plants compete for sunlight, water and nutrients, you shouldn't have been having this discussion.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSixPack wrote:

You are completely off the wall, aren't you... :(
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Basic agronomics, look it up before you make a complete fool of yourself.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSixPack wrote:

You took a joke and made it the only thing of a total post you replied to.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

In my country, "they" means something different than does "I". What was your native language again?
--Goedjn
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

This conversation is being conducted in English. All forms of English to which I am aware, do not contain any other word to describe a group of animate and/or inanimate objects with a pronoun other than "they."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.