How does the biology differ for cannabis and cannabinoids?
http://m.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27308720
http://m.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27308720
"CO2 'significantly reduces' nutrients in major food crops"
- Thread starter ceosam
- Start date
sounds like more BBC co2 bashing bullshit to me..
The way these people grow crops and approach natural systems is fucked in the head from the get go so i don't trust their "data" which is predetermined by the financial backers of these sorts of "reports" anyway if you look into the think tanks behind this rubbish "science"..
The BBC is completely full of fucking shit, always has been.
You're scrolling through the worlds most proficient (zionist/royalist/atonist) propaganda mill there bud i'm very sorry to say.
The way these people grow crops and approach natural systems is fucked in the head from the get go so i don't trust their "data" which is predetermined by the financial backers of these sorts of "reports" anyway if you look into the think tanks behind this rubbish "science"..
The BBC is completely full of fucking shit, always has been.
You're scrolling through the worlds most proficient (zionist/royalist/atonist) propaganda mill there bud i'm very sorry to say.
L
Luther Burbank
Come on, lost, that wasn't a refutation of anything in that article. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater by dismissing all mainstream scientific research. To do so is to fall prey to one's own ideology. For the record bbc has issues but is actively critical of Israel and is rather balanced about the royals all things considered.
As for the article it raises legitimate agricultural concerns. Higher CO2 will decrease nutrient uptake in all sorts of crops, that's nature. I dare say decreased zinc and iron uptake and decreased protein synthesis will have an effect, but what that will be I wish I could say. Perhaps forward this question to Mark Merlin over at UoH's botany department.
Here's the scientific study the bbc was refering to http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature13179.html
As for the article it raises legitimate agricultural concerns. Higher CO2 will decrease nutrient uptake in all sorts of crops, that's nature. I dare say decreased zinc and iron uptake and decreased protein synthesis will have an effect, but what that will be I wish I could say. Perhaps forward this question to Mark Merlin over at UoH's botany department.
Here's the scientific study the bbc was refering to http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature13179.html
WHAT!!!!!!!!!
MY JAW JUST HIT THE GROUND!!
ACTIVELY CRITICAL OF ISRAEL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
BALANCED ABOUT THE ROYALS!!!!!!!!!!!
No way dude my head just exploded lmfao!!
so funny thank you,, i'm going to be laughing about for a long time..
MY JAW JUST HIT THE GROUND!!
ACTIVELY CRITICAL OF ISRAEL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
BALANCED ABOUT THE ROYALS!!!!!!!!!!!
No way dude my head just exploded lmfao!!
so funny thank you,, i'm going to be laughing about for a long time..
Honestly i'm just scared to death of the Neo liberal fascists occupying the center government slot in every country using studies like this to drive the cattle towards their "greener" way, they are making average ignorant people even more stupid and useless and reliant and poor..
the study was on grains and legumes, it may well be accurate, the grains futures market will starve hundreds of millions of africans anyway soon enough in ways more complicated than i can be arsed to go into.. these crops are used to control the third world and already have very little nutrients anyway which is why the powers that be are interested in them.
I just don't believe that blaming one compound and legislating to that solely is a holistic or very sane answer to what is approaching us. We are officially in a dark age,, and when people look back they will laugh that we believed in dark holes we couldn't see or or dark matter that we also couldn't observe or the deadly co2 demon! all because of mathamagicians and computers..
And a whole list of other crazy ass untested theories we seem to hold as fact in the church of sadomasochism (science).. It always only had one end because that was why the lies were there in the first place,, Aristotolian..
the study was on grains and legumes, it may well be accurate, the grains futures market will starve hundreds of millions of africans anyway soon enough in ways more complicated than i can be arsed to go into.. these crops are used to control the third world and already have very little nutrients anyway which is why the powers that be are interested in them.
I just don't believe that blaming one compound and legislating to that solely is a holistic or very sane answer to what is approaching us. We are officially in a dark age,, and when people look back they will laugh that we believed in dark holes we couldn't see or or dark matter that we also couldn't observe or the deadly co2 demon! all because of mathamagicians and computers..
And a whole list of other crazy ass untested theories we seem to hold as fact in the church of sadomasochism (science).. It always only had one end because that was why the lies were there in the first place,, Aristotolian..
So how did they up the CO2 levels in open fields? The methodology would be interesting to study as it is not practically an easy feat to accomplish to homogeneity. Also their conclusion is logical but not relevant in the larger picture which they have left out. The plants growth efficiency goes up with more CO2 and more sugars and carbs are produced relative to micro-nutrients uptaken. I think that the results have been concluded to serve an agenda at a first glance, as the conclusion is very selective, the definition of "nutrients" is applied selectively to give the desired impression, the truth though is different.
The plant would IMO still be MORE nutritious with more sugars etc. and a relatively higher total crop yield but with lower concentration of "study defined nutrients". For example The CO2 apple would weigh twice as much, be sweeter and have more total calories and a higher total amount of all nutrients (including sugars, carbs and proteins as well as minerals and other nutrients) due to the increased mass of healthier fruit but a lower concentration of protein and minerals relative to sugars and carbs. So it seems they are definitely pushing their own agenda, give me the bigger healthier fruit anyday and I will get a bigger total amount of goodness.
And also like said, how did they do this in open fields, to get homogenous levels of CO2 at the correct concentration, taking into account CO2 stratifying, land contours and wind and air movement. I call... BS agenda parading as science. May a real scientist correct me..
The plant would IMO still be MORE nutritious with more sugars etc. and a relatively higher total crop yield but with lower concentration of "study defined nutrients". For example The CO2 apple would weigh twice as much, be sweeter and have more total calories and a higher total amount of all nutrients (including sugars, carbs and proteins as well as minerals and other nutrients) due to the increased mass of healthier fruit but a lower concentration of protein and minerals relative to sugars and carbs. So it seems they are definitely pushing their own agenda, give me the bigger healthier fruit anyday and I will get a bigger total amount of goodness.
And also like said, how did they do this in open fields, to get homogenous levels of CO2 at the correct concentration, taking into account CO2 stratifying, land contours and wind and air movement. I call... BS agenda parading as science. May a real scientist correct me..
curbiechris
Member
hold up...
you don't believe in black holes? dark matter?
what about E=MC squared?
you don't believe in black holes? dark matter?
what about E=MC squared?
Big jump from BS agenda and science as a front to E=MC squared..? Statistics and data can be used to "prove" any angle when selectively reported, doesn't make it science though. I'd be interested to hear what a real scientist like Einstein thought of this as the bankers own most of the academics today and quite a lot of "science" is just some agenda being pushed or cultured.. not many question much when it comes out of the mouth of a man in a white coat and not many white coats question the agenda/status quo that pays the bills and for the research.
curbiechris
Member
my question was directed for lost_at_sea
but to comment on what you said, maryjaneismyfre, well first... i do not believe they "upped" the CO2
They've grown 41 different varieties of grains and legumes in open fields, with levels of carbon dioxide expected in the middle of this century.
second, i have yet to be convinced that global warming is an agenda for... well... for what again?
L
Luther Burbank
Lost, you lost me. Too much of what you're saying are tropes people who've bit too hard into ideology say. I'm glad to start from a central point and discuss science and facts but when you're starting from a place where you're suggeating third world crop choice is purposely unnutritious because the powers that be control them, or you're misunderstanding the central role of CO2 in processing all other plant functions, we're going to be having inherently different talks.
Same to you maryjane. There's a huge list of researchers on that article and it's quite a convenient dismissal to say they all just have an agenda or that it's all bs politics. Stop looking for confirmation of your own beliefs and look at the actual data and research.
Refute this study on the basis of its content, not because of your ideology. One love to both of you, and perhaps we can bridge the gap here.
Same to you maryjane. There's a huge list of researchers on that article and it's quite a convenient dismissal to say they all just have an agenda or that it's all bs politics. Stop looking for confirmation of your own beliefs and look at the actual data and research.
Refute this study on the basis of its content, not because of your ideology. One love to both of you, and perhaps we can bridge the gap here.
Last edited:
Its hard to fully understand with just a short abstract and five graphs , maybe someone with access can download it , interested but cant really justify the asking price.
Guessing it was done like many other trials , greenhouse with increased CO2 compared to ambient levels in another identical greenhouse.
The inference seems to be that the reduced protein and trace element content in certain plant groups can be counteracted by breeding strains to maintain these amounts if the atmospheric CO2 levels rise as predicted.
Traditional methods or GM should both work in this timespan.
The BBC is badly dumbed down from what it once was , recommend Al Jazeera for a different take on world events and more in depth reporting.
Guessing it was done like many other trials , greenhouse with increased CO2 compared to ambient levels in another identical greenhouse.
The inference seems to be that the reduced protein and trace element content in certain plant groups can be counteracted by breeding strains to maintain these amounts if the atmospheric CO2 levels rise as predicted.
Traditional methods or GM should both work in this timespan.
The BBC is badly dumbed down from what it once was , recommend Al Jazeera for a different take on world events and more in depth reporting.
Too many people never learned the skills required to process results like these. The scientists doing the work get blamed for the short cuts taken by journalists and deliberate manipulation
Constant repetition of the convenient notion that science can be twisted to support "agendas" doesn't make it true. It's lazy thinking that has to intentionally ignore the facts.
Why bother trying to figure out what's going on if the answers conflict with emotions, hopes, wishful thinking and preconceived notions? Hilarious that religious extremists, political crackpots and Exxon-Mobil are all on the same page.
Constant repetition of the convenient notion that science can be twisted to support "agendas" doesn't make it true. It's lazy thinking that has to intentionally ignore the facts.
Why bother trying to figure out what's going on if the answers conflict with emotions, hopes, wishful thinking and preconceived notions? Hilarious that religious extremists, political crackpots and Exxon-Mobil are all on the same page.
curbiechris
Member
So they did up the CO2 in an open field.
The data for this study was taken from 7 different FACE (Free Air CO2 Enrichment) experimental locations.
Here's an example of how it works...
http://www.biocon.umn.edu/face-technology/
http://aspenface.mtu.edu/
The data for this study was taken from 7 different FACE (Free Air CO2 Enrichment) experimental locations.
Here's an example of how it works...
http://www.biocon.umn.edu/face-technology/
http://aspenface.mtu.edu/
sounds like more BBC co2 bashing bullshit to me..
The way these people grow crops and approach natural systems is fucked in the head from the get go so i don't trust their "data" which is predetermined by the financial backers of these sorts of "reports" anyway if you look into the think tanks behind this rubbish "science"..
The BBC is completely full of fucking shit, always has been.
You're scrolling through the worlds most proficient (zionist/royalist/atonist) propaganda mill there bud i'm very sorry to say.
agree with all that, BBC are disinformation, Establishment mouth piece, agenda pushing ****s
Russia Today is hardly a fair and unbiased source of information , strongly anti American and much of their UK content is taken from the BBC and the Daily Mail.
But its still better than the Beeb.
AJ seems to have the edge on reporting the middle east , and covers topics the BBC would never touch.
But its still better than the Beeb.
AJ seems to have the edge on reporting the middle east , and covers topics the BBC would never touch.
Didnt have you down as an Alex Jones fan lol
ok sure, so that is how it is done... thanks. Corrected on that note, but not convinced on the CO2 study.
I cannot read the entire study as I dont have access though it would be nice. So they can mimic elevated CO2 levels but I stand by my opinion, ie. IMO, that they have selectively looked for results. Why the selective "reporting" of data by the scientists and opinionated conclusions. I live in the third world and all the wheat/bread, rice and grain products here are "fortified with essential minerals" anyway to prevent this at the source and to excuse the fact that the $%# has been processed out of the grains already. The millions that die of malnutrition die from not getting enough food and not from their food not being nutritious enough in terms of iron content. If they were to get food, it is fortified already to government and WHO standards, corrupt politicians affect third world food security far more.
They did not report on the nutritition of the grain but just on protein, zinc and iron and then assumed for their arguments sake that this was the nutritional content when in FACT it is not, the nutritional content is more than that. They did not, to what I can read in reports or the excerpt, report data on the total yield of nutrients like as in g or kg iron or protein per hectare, neither for the all nutrients in the food nor their "nutrients", which to my mind is fishy. Why the omission of data, if I were a scientist doing that study, it would not satisfy me as giving the full picture. Totals are not mentioned, just percentages and percentages relative to what? What increased relative to the decrease in zinc, iron and protein, this has been omitted. And how does that effect the complete nutrition of the crop in terms of all that is nutrients in the plant that we use? We don't just eat iron, zinc and protein. What about fats (oils), sugars/carbs/ vitamins etc.. all conveniently left out of the study but very definitely nutrients in my book.
I also think in a changed and higher CO2 climate, which I don't dispute, there will be higher levels of fungal and bacterial life, and resulting more food for the plants. Temperatures will be higher also. When growing in greenhouses or indoor with CO2 we up the temperatures and food to a new optimal level which suits the plants increased metabolism. I don't think any other factors were explored by the study, including a higher growing temperature and higher food requirements by the plants. I think the study is inconclusive but makes then tries to some strong conclusions..why? It makes quite a broad blanket conclusion that plants in future higher concentrations of CO2 will threaten global nutrition. I say I'm still not convinced. I think that we may have more crops in total (again..why the omission of totals) and some may have a slightly lower iron, protein and zinc level. The jump to "threatening human nutrition" is speculation and not science. I think there will be far more crops to feed the hungry and we will grow more C4 crops and others proportionally but the powers that be will still process the crap out of the food and fortify it anyway. But that is just my opinion as stated and not my study.
I cannot read the entire study as I dont have access though it would be nice. So they can mimic elevated CO2 levels but I stand by my opinion, ie. IMO, that they have selectively looked for results. Why the selective "reporting" of data by the scientists and opinionated conclusions. I live in the third world and all the wheat/bread, rice and grain products here are "fortified with essential minerals" anyway to prevent this at the source and to excuse the fact that the $%# has been processed out of the grains already. The millions that die of malnutrition die from not getting enough food and not from their food not being nutritious enough in terms of iron content. If they were to get food, it is fortified already to government and WHO standards, corrupt politicians affect third world food security far more.
They did not report on the nutritition of the grain but just on protein, zinc and iron and then assumed for their arguments sake that this was the nutritional content when in FACT it is not, the nutritional content is more than that. They did not, to what I can read in reports or the excerpt, report data on the total yield of nutrients like as in g or kg iron or protein per hectare, neither for the all nutrients in the food nor their "nutrients", which to my mind is fishy. Why the omission of data, if I were a scientist doing that study, it would not satisfy me as giving the full picture. Totals are not mentioned, just percentages and percentages relative to what? What increased relative to the decrease in zinc, iron and protein, this has been omitted. And how does that effect the complete nutrition of the crop in terms of all that is nutrients in the plant that we use? We don't just eat iron, zinc and protein. What about fats (oils), sugars/carbs/ vitamins etc.. all conveniently left out of the study but very definitely nutrients in my book.
I also think in a changed and higher CO2 climate, which I don't dispute, there will be higher levels of fungal and bacterial life, and resulting more food for the plants. Temperatures will be higher also. When growing in greenhouses or indoor with CO2 we up the temperatures and food to a new optimal level which suits the plants increased metabolism. I don't think any other factors were explored by the study, including a higher growing temperature and higher food requirements by the plants. I think the study is inconclusive but makes then tries to some strong conclusions..why? It makes quite a broad blanket conclusion that plants in future higher concentrations of CO2 will threaten global nutrition. I say I'm still not convinced. I think that we may have more crops in total (again..why the omission of totals) and some may have a slightly lower iron, protein and zinc level. The jump to "threatening human nutrition" is speculation and not science. I think there will be far more crops to feed the hungry and we will grow more C4 crops and others proportionally but the powers that be will still process the crap out of the food and fortify it anyway. But that is just my opinion as stated and not my study.
Last edited:
