SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: The Dodgy Ticker who wrote (642047)9/16/2017 2:18:04 AM
From: frankw19001 Recommendation

Recommended By
The Dodgy Ticker

  Read Replies (1) of 793896
 
Interesting article you referenced ( politico.com ).

I'm reminded of a discussion I had with a person elsewhere a couple of years ago. He was complaining about both the oceanic over fishing and destruction of salmon habitat in the Fraser River system that had led to decreasing size of salmon spawning runs. I was intrigued because at that very time the Fraser was having the largest sockeye spawning run, as far as anyone could tell, in history!

For a couple of weeks it was the cheapest animal protein the chinese super market was selling.

I looked into it for a couple of reasons. First, it's certainly the case that the Fraser watershed is in better shape than it was 60 - 70 years ago. It doesn't release water as fast. Second a lot of work has been done to make sure migrating salmon can make the trip upriver reasonably unimpeded and salmon fishing on US and Canadian controlled waters is highly regulated.

Third it was certainly the case the sockeye runs had been low.

There was speculation the loss might have been caused by warmer water temperatures - AGW, right?

Fish biologists gave an explanation. The fish that returned in the previous low migration years were malnourished and their survival rate was low. The bumper year fish were not malnourished . The explanation was that the N Pacific ocean had been fertilized by volcanic activity in Kamchatka leading to a burst of growth in the microbiota and thus the food chain.

My point is it pays not to jump to conclusions.

But I'll speculate on not much data (as in practically none), and jump to a conclusion which is definitely questionable. I last took a biology course over fifty years ago.

Plants store starch in their leaves as an energy sink, (as analogously animals do with fat), and use it for their metabolic processes. So with increased CO2 and increasing metabolic rate the amount of starch in a leaf proportionate to other substances increases.

(Can a grazing animal's microbiome cope? Probably, although it will have to eat a larger weight of leaves to keep its symbionts happy).

With the increased metabolic activity the proportions and amount of K, P and N and trace minerals the plant requires will change. So the type of fertilization and other supplementation farmers do will need to change.

Given the huge science driven change in agriculture world wide creating much greater yields nearly everywhere, it seems to me it's extremely likely scientists and plant breeders can breed/modify basic crops to be more nutritious despite the change in plant behavior due to increased CO2.

It's a good thing US, Canada and Europe still have great aggie schools.

Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News