The sample size is adequate for the conclusions drawn from the results. The breeds and ages are representative of dogs used for this work. Nothing in your post supports the idea that the study is "nonsense".
That has nothing to do with chemicals and everything to do with machinery. Modern tractors and air drills can easily plant well over 1000 acres a day. A modern combine will harvest 300+ acres a day. In 1870 it took a man with a scythe and a woman following bundling sheafs to harvest an acre a day. That's a 600x increase in LABOR productivity due to machinery. None of this has anything to do with chemicals or land productivity.
The problem is the summary says "In contrast, the effects of Roundup on soil fauna and functioning were minor" despite there being no way to come to that conclusion from the experiment conducted.
>You don’t get to keep your wasteful jet-setting, SUV-driving, car-culture-oriented consumer lifestyle
I don't have that lifestyle, but the people telling me the world is going to end because of CO2 so I am evil for eating meat do though. Funny how that works.
>it is the obligation of wealthy countries to radically curtail their own use of fossil fuels
No it isn't. Why would we be responsible for the failures of others?
>This technology must then be exported to poorer countries on a free or subsidized basis.
We did not create their low standard of living, we are under no obligation to try to create a high standard of living for them, while being attacked for it. Africa could have a perfectly reasonable standard of living if they did not reproduce out of control, consuming all gains via increased population. There's a good book that discusses why "charity" and "aid" can not and will not ever fix the problems of the "developing" world:
>The world needs to be fed and needs to be fed properly
We can already do that without GMO.
>but damn is it a viable solution for vitamin deficiency and a way forward through changing environments.
Considering the areas people are concerned about are already subsisting on grains the developed world is giving them, it is simpler, easier, and more cost effective to just fortify that grain.
Why is it outrageous? He was limited to talking about his research in his official capacity, and he wanted to talk about a bunch of stuff completely outside of his research. Just because you do research on the effects of CO2 on rice nutrient content, doesn't mean you can use your government position to talk about predicting future weather, drought conditions, heat, etc.
>So does that mean that at any given place, there won't be soil for deeper than the roots go?
In general yes. The exception being where there were roots and someone recently killed all the plants, it takes a while for the soil to die. Also some plants have roots that are just for water, usually taproots, and those can go much deeper than the soil since they don't care about microbes or nutrients, just water.
>What happens to the soul if all the roots die or are removed (assuming it is not washed away by water)? Does it decay into CO2?
Yep. This is how plowing and tilling has destroyed so much top soil. Much of the Americas had several feet of rich, dark topsoil in the 1700s, which we proceeded to plow every year, leaving it bare for months so that the microbes had nothing feeding them, so the exudate feeders start dying, the decomposers decompose their "corpses" and the soil loses a bunch of carbon to the atmosphere as CO2. Over years of conventional farming, you eventually end up losing all the soil and you're left with just dirt, which you now need to add soluble fertilizer to in order to grow a crop.
>whether it is better to let tree grows on a parcel, or cut grass regularly and let it compost, adding biomass to it.
Of those two options, trees. Compost does not sequester carbon in and of itself. That's a wishful thinking myth that is based on a lack of understanding of soil. Compost is organic matter, in various stages of life, death and decay. We want soil to have more organic matter. So people assumed adding compost to dirt would accomplish this. It does not. The organic matter is decomposed into CO2 and returns to the atmosphere. We need to increase STABLE organic matter in the soil, and compost does not do that simply by adding it to dirt. The only thing that creates stable organic matter is microbes living in the rhizosphere in symbiosis with plants. In order to increase soil SOM, we need more root mass. The way compost can help is to plant a forest or meadow and keep soaking it in compost tea so that the roots get deeper and deeper, expanding the rhizosphere and the depth of the soil. Normal roots will only grow as deep as there are symbiotic microbes, and yet those microbes will only live where there are roots, so there's a catch-22. We can use the microbes in compost, dissolved into water as compost tea, to get microbes deeper than the roots, so the roots go deeper, and then keep doing that. There's people with grass that has 20 foot deep roots from doing this.
This is literally Chinese government propaganda. People are paid to post nonsense like that. The "western media won't tell you this" start is a dead give away.
Where does this idea come from? With any conflict there's obviously two sides to the "who started it?" question, but with WW1 those two sides are Serbia and Austria-Hungary, Germany isn't even one of the options. The start of WW1:
1. Serbian assassinates archduke of Austria-Hungary
2. Austria-Hungary goes to war against Serbia
3. Russia goes to war against Austria-Hungary in defense of Serbia
4. Germany goes to war against Russia in defense of Austria-Hungary
5. France goes to war against Germany in defense of Russia
6. Belgium refuses Germany passage to attack France, so Germany invades Belgium to attack France
7. Britain goes to war against Germany in defense of Belgium
Ever more technology may not actually be the solution to the problems created by technology. We could already produce all our food just fine without pesticides. We don't need more technology, we need people to recognize that this isn't a minor issue that can be ignored, and actually make a change.
1. Yet the industry still refuses to stop forcing honeybees to have abnormally long and large growth, which is the main factor in death by varroa.
2. Not really. None of the temperatures we're recording anywhere around the country are special. We've had extreme variations in seasonal temperatures forever.
3. Commercial bees aren't africanized.
4. And just like with #1, the industry refuses to make any changes to accomodate the fact that bees are bees. They want to continue to treat them as machinery and then complain that they keep "mysteriously" dying.
5. I have to be fair to the beekeeping industry here in that they really have no say in this. Industrial agriculture is a disaster.
>I'm willing to read a good citation here if you have one, but the "overwhelming evidence" lies on the other side where docile and submissive specimens of fighting breeds
Who eviscerate their owner after being docile and submissive for many years. The fact is self-evident. How many sheep dogs point? How many pointers herd? Behaviour is massively inheritable, and pointing to exceptions shows that you know this. The fact that they are exceptions shows that the majority of individuals in a breed behave as their breed behaves.
>and dominant specimens of family-friendly breeds can be easily observed
There is no such thing as a "dominant specimen". The dog whisperer was not real, it was a phony show just like all reality TV shows.
>Inbreeding increases the number of recessive genes floating around in the gene pool, increasing the number of carriers.
You are conflating purebred with inbred. This is simply dishonest. Are the children of a Japanese couple inbred because both their parents are Japanese? Inbreeding means close relations, not anyone in the same breed or ethnic group.
>If you cross a breed that is prone to hip dysplasia with one that isn't, none of the offspring will suffer from hip dysplasia
That's not true at all. You are conflating "prone to" with 100% has the gene for, and "not prone to" with 100% doesn't have the gene for. And hip dysplasia is not a simple single recessive gene, and is very common in all large dogs, including mutts.
>Now understand that a lot of genetic diseases are the result of the interactions of many genes of which the exact mechanism is unclear, and it should become clear there is no solid way to prevent a disease from expressing itself through careful monitoring.
Careful monitoring is not 100%, but it is more effective than just random chance, which is what you are advocating.
>For now, the best way to guarantee a healthy dog is to mix in new genes and keep the gene pool healthy
That is simply a lie. Well bred bloodlines of purebred dogs have far lower rates of congenital health problems than mutts do. Consider the shiba inu for example. They are a pure breed. Yet they have lower rates of congenital health problems than mixed breed dogs do. Same with working lines of lots of breeds, from rat terriers to malinois.