SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Palm oil is a commodity that generally evokes images of mass deforestation, human-rights violations and dying orangutans. In Indonesia and Malaysia, where some 85% of the world's palm oil is produced, more than 16 million hectares of land — rainforest, peat bogs and old rubber plantations — have been taken over by oil palm, and there is no sign of the industry slowing down.
Despite its bad reputation, oil palm is the most productive oil crop in the world. Oilseed rape (canola) currently produces only about one-sixth of the oil per hectare — soya bean only one-tenth. But oil-palm plantations still aren't getting as much as they could out of their plants.
The main problem is that genetic and epigenetic variables can cause some palms to underproduce. And because oil palms mature slowly, growers typically don't know for three to four years whether the trees they plant will turn out to be star performers or worthless wood.
That's where Orion comes in. When the leaf punches sent out around southeast Asia return, Orion technicians process the disc of greenery within and can send growers a report on the quality of their young plants. Lakey predicts that, if adopted on a large scale, the test could raise industry revenue by about US$4 billion per year. And, importantly, it could do so without expanding plantations. "We can get more oil for an equivalent area of land — this could help take the pressure off deforestation," Lakey says.
The world's most hated crop is not kale?
(Score: 1) by Tyrsal on Thursday March 16 2017, @03:08PM (10 children)
"evokes images of mass deforistations, human rights violations etc..." It.. does?
(Score: 4, Touché) by lx on Thursday March 16 2017, @03:17PM (5 children)
It should.
(Score: 2) by zocalo on Thursday March 16 2017, @04:16PM (4 children)
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Thursday March 16 2017, @06:02PM (3 children)
Your second link explicitly states that it's the much higher concentration of omega-6 fatty acids that are the big problem with excessive vegetable oil consumption. And from what I can find palm oil is actually extremely low in omega-6, approximately the same as butter or lard.
So, if that's the entirety of your argument, you should be overjoyed at any increase of palm oil to displace other vegetable oils.
(Score: 2) by zocalo on Thursday March 16 2017, @06:27PM (2 children)
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Immerman on Thursday March 16 2017, @08:18PM (1 child)
Sure, but there's nothing special about vegetable oils in that regard - *all* fats are bad in the quantities being commonly pushed into the food chain, butter and lard would be only somewhat better. The link specifically calls out the health risks of vegetable oils, so I point out that palm oil does not appear to share in those risks, at first glance being no worse than animal fats.
For that matter sugars and other refined carbohydrates aren't exactly doing us any favors in the quantities commonly used. Neither are meats - beef is especially unhealthy in American-diet sized quantities, but meat in general isn't particularly healthy in large quantities, unless maybe you're descended primarily from arid plains/tundra cultures that spent thousands of years without substantial access to any other food source. The modern diet is woefully short on nutritious fruits and vegetables, which available evidence suggests should be the primary food source for primates such as ourselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 17 2017, @01:33AM
How much does the fruit and vegetable lobby pay you to shill for them?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Dunbal on Thursday March 16 2017, @03:27PM (3 children)
Cos I swear to you if I didn't cut down the forest to plant palm trees for oil, I wouldn't have cut down the forest for cattle, sugar cane, coffee, (insert crop here)... Blame palm oil.
Anyway I planted a forest. And just to prove that you can NEVER please eco - types, apparently I'm a bad person because the 600+ hectares of teak I planted are a "monoculture". So it doesn't fucking count.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 16 2017, @06:42PM (2 children)
if you were doing it to restore the land back to nature it is kind of funny that you planted all the same species.
(Score: 2) by Dunbal on Thursday March 16 2017, @09:29PM (1 child)
Who the fuck would invest money to "restore land back to nature"? I did it so my grand-children can make money. Now, argue that the piece of land which was deforested, abandoned scrubland and pasture when I bought it is worse off than it was now that it's covered with forest canopy and protected from erosion by deep and extensive roots. But hang on, before you do that - in what way exactly have YOU made an impact on the environment? And don't talk to me about recycling your plastic bottles because I do that too.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 17 2017, @01:12AM
Who the fuck would invest money to "restore land back to nature"?
Someone trying to attract eco-tourists, perhaps? Anyway, you get a silver star for planting trees. Thank you.