Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
posted by janrinok on Tuesday June 21, @05:10AM   Printer-friendly [Skip to comment(s)]
from the industrial-optimization dept.

A new data-driven approach looks at practices that are good for the earth and profitable for farmers:

[T]he agricultural industry contributes about 10% of U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Because the amount of land dedicated for agriculture is limited, farmers need to find more ways to operate efficiently, sustainably and profitably while also reducing GHG emissions. With new practices, farmers can make farms a net sink of CO2, helping the U.S. reach its goal of achieving net zero emissions by 2050.

Sustainable intensification is a two-prong approach many think could help. It tries to optimize land use and management practices for maximum farmland productivity at the same time it tries to minimize associated environmental impact. The trick is finding the right balance between the two objectives.

[...] "The concept of sustainable intensification of farming was applied into more broadscale landscape application," said one of the article's co-authors, Hoyoung Kwon, a principal environmental scientist in Argonne's Energy Systems and Infrastructure Analysis (ESIA) division. ​"We considered productivity and GHG emissions, attempted to optimize land management tactics and products, and investigated different trade-offs that improve the land and land productivity."

For example, farmers can clear and repurpose corn crop residue (or ​"stover") for biofuel, but a percentage of stover can remain in the soil for valuable nutrient and carbon sources for future crops. Farmers can plant cover crops during the winter (or ​"fallow") season, to supplement removed stover. The authors took into account energy, which has an emissions cost of planting of cover crops to holistically address net benefits of stover removal and cover crop planting. Farmers can also reduce how much land they till after a growing season ends, which lessens decay and reduces the amount of CO2 that emanates from the soil. However, the farmer has to till some of the land to be ready for the next growing season.

[...] According to the study, harvesting 30% of the corn stover for biofuel production would increase farm revenues, double net profitability and increase overall biofuel production from the landscape by 17–20%. Removal of the stover would also mitigate GHGs somewhat, but it reduced the baseline amount of good carbon in the soil by 40%. In comparison, integrated approaches that include winter cover cropping and/or tillage intensity reduction would increase carbon in the soil, improve farm profitability and mitigate more GHGs.

"We focused on corn and soy but our approach could be extended to other crops," said Hawkins. ​"Many farms today are large, industrial farms that are high-tech and rely much more on high resolution data. We want to give farmers, regional planners and others in agricultural management a tool to calculate how to use land sustainably and get the most value out of the land. This will further both profitability and environmental goals."

Journal Reference:
Trung H.Nguyen et al., A multi-product landscape life-cycle assessment approach for evaluating local climate mitigation potential [open], JCleanProd, 354, 2022. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131691


Original Submission

Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Reply to Article Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21, @05:45AM (8 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21, @05:45AM (#1254824)

    What's going to Save The Planet?
    (a) A quarter-billion humans who're not carbon-neutral
    (b) 40 billion humans who're carbon-neutral

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21, @05:55AM (4 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21, @05:55AM (#1254828)

      (c) Stopping the Russian money flow into greenie leaders' bottomless pockets.

      • (Score: 0, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21, @06:20AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21, @06:20AM (#1254836)

        Speaking of which, where the hell is my most recent Runaway journal entry of hate and death? This is the only reason I come by SN anymore, and if there is no Biden-Derangement, Or Kamala-incapacitation, I may just stop stopping by.

        Yours,
        The One True AC

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday June 21, @11:58AM (2 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 21, @11:58AM (#1254863) Journal

        (c) Stopping the Russian money flow into greenie leaders' bottomless pockets.

        Why would we want to do that? They could spend it on worse.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21, @09:05PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21, @09:05PM (#1255059)

          They could spend it on worse.

          Nothing is worse. The enemy from within is the worst kind of enemy.

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday June 22, @12:35AM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday June 22, @12:35AM (#1255144) Journal

            The enemy from within is the worst kind of enemy.

            My take is that the enemy within is not made worse by Russian funding. At least they're gainfully employed.

    • (Score: 2) by Tokolosh on Tuesday June 21, @08:05PM (2 children)

      by Tokolosh (585) on Tuesday June 21, @08:05PM (#1255034)

      Stop obsessing over carbon and focus on the problem - cooling the planet. Emissions are a huge distraction.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21, @09:03PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21, @09:03PM (#1255057)

        Even IF we need cooling the planet and not heating (we aren't out of the Quaternary glaciation yet), the cooling is a solved problem. Remember the Hunga Tonga, and observe this summer (or rather, the lack of it). Putting a comparable amount of dust into the stratosphere will be orders of magnitude cheaper, in resources and human lives, that the mass-suicide-by-power-plants-destruction the peanut gallery is pushing.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 22, @12:26PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 22, @12:26PM (#1255327)

        So, it's like stop obsessing over the air quality, we need to have clean air?

        Emissions are the *source* of the problem. You are not going to engineer your way around it unless your solution is to put a giant umbrella between us and the sun. And let's just say, it's much easier to now go with the big umbrella.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21, @12:30PM (11 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21, @12:30PM (#1254873)

    what you think it does.

    Jevon's Paradox will overtake any perceived gains.

    "helping the U.S. reach its goal of achieving net zero emissions by 2050"
    bwhhhhahaaaaa hahahahaa!

    Ya right, as they tell us with the same sock puppet mouthpiece that the war in Ukraine will last YEARS.
    No fucking way there is going to be a net zero by any standard while the military is sucking on the tit!

    We are doing the exact opposite of reduction.
    AND forcing countries to switch to coal with all our stupid sanctions.
    Good luck with all that.

    • (Score: 4, Touché) by khallow on Tuesday June 21, @01:10PM (4 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 21, @01:10PM (#1254881) Journal

      Jevon's Paradox will overtake any perceived gains.

      Not if the inefficiency isn't the bottleneck to use of the good or service. For example, suppose I design a car with easier to open doors. There might be a slight preference for that car over another car that is identical in every aspect except those doors. But in practice, there's a lot more to a car than how easy it is to open the doors.

      Here, there's some slight economic differences to how stover is used, but it doesn't change the fundamental economics of growing corn. People aren't going to grow a lot more corn just because its effect on AGW has declined significantly.

      Ya right, as they tell us with the same sock puppet mouthpiece that the war in Ukraine will last YEARS. No fucking way there is going to be a net zero by any standard while the military is sucking on the tit!

      I wonder if that Ukrainian gobbledygook was the purpose of your post.

      AND forcing countries to switch to coal with all our stupid sanctions.

      Another butt hurt Russian apologist?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21, @03:10PM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21, @03:10PM (#1254912)

        Independent of how the stover is used, tfa doesn't mention anything about all the diesel that goes into farm tractors and other farm equipment.

        I've mentioned before a small dairy operation (western NY State) that runs their tractors on half soybean oil extracted from the soy they feed to their cows. Cut 50-50 with regular diesel, this cuts their fossil fuel use roughly in half with no further processing required (making "biodiesel" needs a bit more processing). But I believe that 50-50 is about as far as they can go with this fuel and their older, non-computer-controlled diesels. The cows do better on the feed too, the soy oil doesn't agree with cows very well, better to remove it anyway.

        Could shade crops be planted under a solar farm, with the solar electricity used to power tractors?

        • (Score: 2) by Freeman on Tuesday June 21, @03:22PM

          by Freeman (732) on Tuesday June 21, @03:22PM (#1254921) Journal

          That may work for a small scale farm that's big on solar and small on space. Otherwise, that's just making things harder on you than they need to be.

          --
          Forced Microsoft Account for Windows Login → Switch to Linux.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21, @03:31PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21, @03:31PM (#1254924)

          You would have to elevate the panels to grow stuff in the shade under them. Seems expensive.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21, @03:38PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21, @03:38PM (#1254928)

          Could shade crops be planted under a solar farm, with the solar electricity used to power tractors?

          Why should it?
          120hp tractor = 90kW.

          20% efficient solar panels (typical nowadays), 1kW/sqm solar constant, an area of 30mx30m generates at full sun 900/5 = 180kW. I bet half of it can be set on available rooftops (home/barn).
          Average land area for a farm in US is 444acres [usda.gov] = 1.797e+6sqm. We are talking less than 0.1% of land here.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21, @02:54PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21, @02:54PM (#1254906)

      Ya right, as they tell us with the same sock puppet mouthpiece that the war in Ukraine will last YEARS.

      I see the percentage of renewables in the grid soaring in the next 2 year.
      I also see the research in energy storage as the next grants tit many labs will start sucking from. Bottom line, some will deliver honest progress/results (necessity, the mother of invention).

    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21, @03:18PM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21, @03:18PM (#1254916)

      Jevon's Paradox will overtake any perceived gains.

      Betcha will not. 15kW solar panel creates excess of energy for the household using them.
      The flyover country have more than enough roof space to feed power to more than double their population, with no loss to cultivated land.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 22, @12:32PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 22, @12:32PM (#1255329)

      AND forcing countries to switch to coal with all our stupid sanctions.

      Err, where is the proof for that?

      For the record, the German Green Party voted to shut down nuclear power even if it produces CO2-neutral output while restarting coal because of threat of reduced gas flow from Russia. This has fuck-all to do with "our stupid sanctions" and all to do with stupid wars and politics. No one forced Germany to disable their nuclear power plants and turn on to coal except Germany. Writing this from Germany.

      And for another record, most of the world doesn't give a fuck about your sanctions anyway. Here, look at the map.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_sanctions_during_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War [wikipedia.org]

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21, @02:20PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21, @02:20PM (#1254892)

    From the article: "We want to give farmers, regional planners and others in agricultural management a tool to calculate how to use land sustainably and get the most value out of the land."

    Well, it's nice that they deigned to include farmers in that list.

  • (Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21, @06:16PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21, @06:16PM (#1254970)

    Guess what Dalek? YOU LOSE, hosts work vs. Symbiote C2 server(s) per this line from a MUCH better article than the one used here from bradley13 per "configuration in the binary that used the git[.]bancodobrasil[.]dev domain as its C2 server" from https://www.intezer.com/blog/research/new-linux-threat-symbiote/ [intezer.com] (INTEZER's now owned by Microsoft iirc as well).

    & did I block that in my original posts here https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=49835&page=1&cid=1253504#commentwrap [soylentnews.org] on this BOGUS sockpuppet upmodding yourselves shithole website (which also noted FIREWALLS are invaluable here too, per wildcards (or even IP address use, URL domain/subdomain too in many as well)?

    YES I DID! I was correct...

    & YES, hosts work vs. this threat too stupid!

    FACT: hosts files block symbiote C2 servers which is all you really need to do to nullify their communication.

    FACT: Exfiltration isn't possible without orders either.

    FACT: Orders come from C2 servers!

    So YOU LOSE chump... a BETTER ARTICLE than what I used proves it for me!

    * THANKS FOR LOSING TO ME yet again, as always for you... try me again? THIS COMES UP AS PROOF (as well as another I have on YOU regarding using sources where YOU contradict yourself - want quotes of that too? ASK!)

    HOW ESPECIALLY EMBARASSING FOR YOU with your NO-DOUBT self-upmodded by sockpuppet accounts of YOURSELF too - now that YOU have EGG ON YOUR FACE fucko!

    APK

    P.S.=> Do yourself a FAVOR - don't ever, EVER try me ever again OR I WILL MAKE SURE YOU SHIT ON YOURSELF yet again as always, easlly... apk

  • (Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21, @06:57PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21, @06:57PM (#1254998)

    Guess what Dalek? YOU LOSE, hosts work vs. Symbiote C2 server(s) per this line from a MUCH better article than the one used here from bradley13 per "configuration in the binary that used the git[.]bancodobrasil[.]dev domain as its C2 server" from https://www.intezer.com/blog/research/new-linux-threat-symbiote/ [intezer.com] (INTEZER's now owned by Microsoft iirc as well).

    & did I block that in my original posts here https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=49835&page=1&cid=1253504#commentwrap [soylentnews.org] on this BOGUS sockpuppet upmodding yourselves shithole website (which also noted FIREWALLS are invaluable here too, per wildcards (or even IP address use, URL domain/subdomain too in many as well)?

    YES I DID! I was correct...

    & YES, hosts work vs. this threat too stupid!

    FACT: hosts files block symbiote C2 servers which is all you really need to do to nullify their communication.

    FACT: Exfiltration isn't possible without orders either.

    FACT: Orders come from C2 servers!

    So YOU LOSE chump... a BETTER ARTICLE than what I used proves it for me!

    * THANKS FOR LOSING TO ME yet again, as always for you... try me again? THIS COMES UP AS PROOF (as well as another I have on YOU regarding using sources where YOU contradict yourself - want quotes of that too? ASK!)

    HOW ESPECIALLY EMBARASSING FOR YOU with your NO-DOUBT self-upmodded by sockpuppet accounts of YOURSELF too - now that YOU have EGG ON YOUR FACE fucko!

    APK

    P.S.=> Do yourself a FAVOR - don't ever, EVER try me ever again OR I WILL MAKE SURE YOU SHIT ON YOURSELF yet again as always, easlly... apk

  • (Score: 2) by ElizabethGreene on Tuesday June 21, @06:59PM (5 children)

    by ElizabethGreene (6748) on Tuesday June 21, @06:59PM (#1255000)

    From tfp abstract..

    By their model, soil normally accumulates (sequesters) 290kg of carbon per hectare per year. They propose to cut that by 40%, that is to reduce the amount of soil carbon accumulation, by harvesting corn stover (stalks) to make cellulosic ethanol. This pays the farmer an additional $49 per hectare.

    They claim that this ethanol production will "increase the total greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation potential" by 930 kg per hectare year. Based on my initial reading that seems to be based on dirt-to-sky emissions of ethanol replacing fossil fuels, not an actual increase in sequestration.

    Soil carbon is the secret sauce to productive cropland. I *feel*, for what that's worth, that there is more environmental bang-for-buck from intentionally increasing soil carbon sequestration vs. converting it into ethanol. Perhaps I'm wrong.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21, @07:21PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21, @07:21PM (#1255010)

      Do you think there's something here? The only way these practices will get picked up is if they save costs, which this paper seems to suggest it does. However, doesn't anything that tries to put carbon and nutrients back into the soil, such as cover crops, go against the interests of the companies who make fertilizers? Do you think there is enough improvement in the bottom line to motive making these changes over just staying with the status quo? I'm sure farm subsidies play a decent hand in this as well.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 22, @12:38PM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 22, @12:38PM (#1255334)

      I *feel*, for what that's worth, that there is more environmental bang-for-buck from intentionally increasing soil carbon sequestration vs. converting it into ethanol

      You would be correct, long term. Short term, it's "gimme $$$$". In other words, soil erosion and quality has been an issue for a very long time and our soil practices are to blame here. No Tilling Farming is part of the answer. Maybe another is to stop exploiting the soil so much and move to higher intensity farming practices like automated greenhouses?

      Another thing that you have to consider is that most of the material that goes into the soil ends up as methane or related because of soil conditions that prevent sequestration. Drainage is big factor here. No water, no sequestration. You need bogs for this, not farm lands. And we drained bogs for farm land.... "gimme $$$$ now" is where we are at. But I'm repeating myself now.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 22, @08:10PM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 22, @08:10PM (#1255438)

        Hold on just a moment. Hold on just one stover-gathering moment.

        You want no-till to be part of the answer. Do you understand that this involves huge dollops of various biocides, and actively avoids turning crop residue into the soil, leaving it to rot on the surface? You need the biocides because otherwise you will be growing mostly weeds, and if you want to sequester carbon it helps to actually get it into the soil itself where the nutrients are less apt to wash away or volatilise as opposed to adding nutrients and fibrous structures to the soil. Tillage is a sensible part of land management, and often a more friendly alternative than no-till.

        There are alternatives such as low-till, conservation tillage and pasture cropping that give more options while spreading fewer toxins.

        • (Score: 2) by ElizabethGreene on Thursday June 23, @03:27AM (1 child)

          by ElizabethGreene (6748) on Thursday June 23, @03:27AM (#1255510)

          You are correct that no-till does not actively turn under residue on the surface, but that's just a fraction of the biomass of a mature plant. Generally speaking the above-ground mass of a plant is roughly equal to the below-ground mass. The big difference with no-till is that residue takes much longer to break down vs. if it were tilled. Tilling introduces oxygen which causes it to break down faster.

          My experience talking to farmers* that drank the no-till kool-aid is that it produces a measurable increase in organic matter in the soil over time.

          * - About 15 years ago I considered abandoning my IT career and moving into agribusiness full time. This research was part of formal business planning for that transition. I couldn't make the numbers work, so I still fix computers.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23, @04:46PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23, @04:46PM (#1255619)

            If you're not turning the residue under, you have a few problems:

            a) rot releases greenhouse gases, including some methane depending on exactly what's rotting and the local conditions

            b) if you leave the above-ground mass around, it becomes a haven for pest species ranging from rodents to fungi

            c) if you take the above-ground mass away without somehow replacing the nutrients caught in it, you're impoverishing your soil over and above the losses captured in the crop itself

            d) if you don't somehow retain the solid mass, many of the nutrients will leach or wash out anyway

            e) the doses of biocide that you'd need to inhibit weed growth, fungal pests, insects and so on also wreak havoc on your soil biota (not to mention other risks such as cancer)

            f) no-till will increase organic matter in the soil compared to tillage-enforced monoculture, because if you're constantly disrupting your soil you're limiting how much organic activity it will have as well as ripping up old root systems, but if you're engaging in something like conservation tilling, low-till rather than no-till, pasture cropping or a similar system then the outcome can still be quite positive without going no-till. You can also do things like aggressively composting your above-ground residues and then incorporating them into the soil, or layering them into the soil along with fast-growing cover crops. Outright no-till is basically a gift to 3M and Bayer. There are alternatives.

            g) if you're fertilising in a no-till system you're faced with the problem of how to get the volatiles (especially nitrogen-related) to stay around the root systems rather than leaving by solution, evaporation or similar. If you're turning in granules, or using something like a seed drill to do it, you have better retention. Even a roller or cultipacker doesn't do as well as getting it down to where it will stay. Downward-facing sprays are better than nothing, but aren't perfect and you're still losing a lot.

            I'm not opposed to revisions of how we manage our soil, but there are good reasons to want to till, rather than the alternatives. This includes turning soil, subsoiling, and harrowing among other approaches. Even if you decide to leave the crop residue on the surface as a mulch, you'll probably want to use something like a notched disc harrow or cultipacker to compact it a bit and punch it into the soil to some extent, to reduce the level to which it blows around. This is analogous to the way that snow, in high snowfall areas, will pack down old grasses to form a bed of dead vegetation.

  • (Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21, @08:22PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21, @08:22PM (#1255038)

    Guess what Dalek? YOU LOSE, hosts work vs. Symbiote C2 server(s) per this line from a MUCH better article than the one used here from bradley13 per "configuration in the binary that used the git[.]bancodobrasil[.]dev domain as its C2 server" from https://www.intezer.com/blog/research/new-linux-threat-symbiote/ [intezer.com] (INTEZER's now owned by Microsoft iirc as well).

    & did I block that in my original posts here https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=49835&page=1&cid=1253504#commentwrap [soylentnews.org] on this BOGUS sockpuppet upmodding yourselves shithole website (which also noted FIREWALLS are invaluable here too, per wildcards (or even IP address use, URL domain/subdomain too in many as well)?

    YES I DID! I was correct...

    & YES, hosts work vs. this threat too stupid!

    FACT: hosts files block symbiote C2 servers which is all you really need to do to nullify their communication.

    FACT: Exfiltration isn't possible without orders either.

    FACT: Orders come from C2 servers!

    So YOU LOSE chump... a BETTER ARTICLE than what I used proves it for me!

    * THANKS FOR LOSING TO ME yet again, as always for you... try me again? THIS COMES UP AS PROOF (as well as another I have on YOU regarding using sources where YOU contradict yourself - want quotes of that too? ASK!)

    HOW ESPECIALLY EMBARASSING FOR YOU with your NO-DOUBT self-upmodded by sockpuppet accounts of YOURSELF too - now that YOU have EGG ON YOUR FACE fucko!

    APK

    P.S.=> Do yourself a FAVOR - don't ever, EVER try me ever again OR I WILL MAKE SURE YOU SHIT ON YOURSELF yet again as always, easlly... apk

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21, @08:30PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21, @08:30PM (#1255041)

    Can farms produce to the max and still reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

    But why? Serious question. As a species why are we hell bent on filling this petri dish with the maximum possible surface area of white dimpled cellulite?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 22, @08:14PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 22, @08:14PM (#1255440)

      You might not like that, but it's simply realistic to recognise that a whole lot of white dimpled cellulite wants to, and is likely to get quite violent with anybody pulling out rugs from under them.

      Of course, if you want to volunteer to demonstrate against the cellulite horror, feel free to stand in front of that juggernaut. Your saintly sacrifice will live forever.

  • (Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21, @09:00PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21, @09:00PM (#1255056)

    Guess what Dalek? YOU LOSE, hosts work vs. Symbiote C2 server(s) per this line from a MUCH better article than the one used here from bradley13 per "configuration in the binary that used the git[.]bancodobrasil[.]dev domain as its C2 server" from https://www.intezer.com/blog/research/new-linux-threat-symbiote/ [intezer.com] (INTEZER's now owned by Microsoft iirc as well).

    & did I block that in my original posts here https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=49835&page=1&cid=1253504#commentwrap [soylentnews.org] on this BOGUS sockpuppet upmodding yourselves shithole website (which also noted FIREWALLS are invaluable here too, per wildcards (or even IP address use, URL domain/subdomain too in many as well)?

    YES I DID! I was correct...

    & YES, hosts work vs. this threat too stupid!

    FACT: hosts files block symbiote C2 servers which is all you really need to do to nullify their communication.

    FACT: Exfiltration isn't possible without orders either.

    FACT: Orders come from C2 servers!

    So YOU LOSE chump... a BETTER ARTICLE than what I used proves it for me!

    * THANKS FOR LOSING TO ME yet again, as always for you... try me again? THIS COMES UP AS PROOF (as well as another I have on YOU regarding using sources where YOU contradict yourself - want quotes of that too? ASK!)

    HOW ESPECIALLY EMBARASSING FOR YOU with your NO-DOUBT self-upmodded by sockpuppet accounts of YOURSELF too - now that YOU have EGG ON YOUR FACE fucko!

    APK

    P.S.=> Do yourself a FAVOR - don't ever, EVER try me ever again OR I WILL MAKE SURE YOU SHIT ON YOURSELF yet again as always, easlly... apk

  • (Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21, @11:10PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21, @11:10PM (#1255110)

    Guess what Dalek? YOU LOSE, hosts work vs. Symbiote C2 server(s) per this line from a MUCH better article than the one used here from bradley13 per "configuration in the binary that used the git[.]bancodobrasil[.]dev domain as its C2 server" from https://www.intezer.com/blog/research/new-linux-threat-symbiote/ [intezer.com] (INTEZER's now owned by Microsoft iirc as well).

    & did I block that in my original posts here https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=49835&page=1&cid=1253504#commentwrap [soylentnews.org] on this BOGUS sockpuppet upmodding yourselves shithole website (which also noted FIREWALLS are invaluable here too, per wildcards (or even IP address use, URL domain/subdomain too in many as well)?

    YES I DID! I was correct...

    & YES, hosts work vs. this threat too stupid!

    FACT: hosts files block symbiote C2 servers which is all you really need to do to nullify their communication.

    FACT: Exfiltration isn't possible without orders either.

    FACT: Orders come from C2 servers!

    So YOU LOSE chump... a BETTER ARTICLE than what I used proves it for me!

    * THANKS FOR LOSING TO ME yet again, as always for you... try me again? THIS COMES UP AS PROOF (as well as another I have on YOU regarding using sources where YOU contradict yourself - want quotes of that too? ASK!)

    HOW ESPECIALLY EMBARASSING FOR YOU with your NO-DOUBT self-upmodded by sockpuppet accounts of YOURSELF too - now that YOU have EGG ON YOUR FACE fucko!

    APK

    P.S.=> Do yourself a FAVOR - don't ever, EVER try me ever again OR I WILL MAKE SURE YOU SHIT ON YOURSELF yet again as always, easlly... apk

  • (Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 22, @01:04AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 22, @01:04AM (#1255156)

    Guess what Dalek? YOU LOSE, hosts work vs. Symbiote C2 server(s) per this line from a MUCH better article than the one used here from bradley13 per "configuration in the binary that used the git[.]bancodobrasil[.]dev domain as its C2 server" from https://www.intezer.com/blog/research/new-linux-threat-symbiote/ [intezer.com] (INTEZER's now owned by Microsoft iirc as well).

    & did I block that in my original posts here https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=49835&page=1&cid=1253504#commentwrap [soylentnews.org] on this BOGUS sockpuppet upmodding yourselves shithole website (which also noted FIREWALLS are invaluable here too, per wildcards (or even IP address use, URL domain/subdomain too in many as well)?

    YES I DID! I was correct...

    & YES, hosts work vs. this threat too stupid!

    FACT: hosts files block symbiote C2 servers which is all you really need to do to nullify their communication.

    FACT: Exfiltration isn't possible without orders either.

    FACT: Orders come from C2 servers!

    So YOU LOSE chump... a BETTER ARTICLE than what I used proves it for me!

    * THANKS FOR LOSING TO ME yet again, as always for you... try me again? THIS COMES UP AS PROOF (as well as another I have on YOU regarding using sources where YOU contradict yourself - want quotes of that too? ASK!)

    HOW ESPECIALLY EMBARASSING FOR YOU with your NO-DOUBT self-upmodded by sockpuppet accounts of YOURSELF too - now that YOU have EGG ON YOUR FACE fucko!

    APK

    P.S.=> Do yourself a FAVOR - don't ever, EVER try me ever again OR I WILL MAKE SURE YOU SHIT ON YOURSELF yet again as always, easlly... apk

  • (Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 22, @03:14AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 22, @03:14AM (#1255199)

    Guess what Dalek? YOU LOSE, hosts work vs. Symbiote C2 server(s) per this line from a MUCH better article than the one used here from bradley13 per "configuration in the binary that used the git[.]bancodobrasil[.]dev domain as its C2 server" from https://www.intezer.com/blog/research/new-linux-threat-symbiote/ [intezer.com] (INTEZER's now owned by Microsoft iirc as well).

    & did I block that in my original posts here https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=49835&page=1&cid=1253504#commentwrap [soylentnews.org] on this BOGUS sockpuppet upmodding yourselves shithole website (which also noted FIREWALLS are invaluable here too, per wildcards (or even IP address use, URL domain/subdomain too in many as well)?

    YES I DID! I was correct...

    & YES, hosts work vs. this threat too stupid!

    FACT: hosts files block symbiote C2 servers which is all you really need to do to nullify their communication.

    FACT: Exfiltration isn't possible without orders either.

    FACT: Orders come from C2 servers!

    So YOU LOSE chump... a BETTER ARTICLE than what I used proves it for me!

    * THANKS FOR LOSING TO ME yet again, as always for you... try me again? THIS COMES UP AS PROOF (as well as another I have on YOU regarding using sources where YOU contradict yourself - want quotes of that too? ASK!)

    HOW ESPECIALLY EMBARASSING FOR YOU with your NO-DOUBT self-upmodded by sockpuppet accounts of YOURSELF too - now that YOU have EGG ON YOUR FACE fucko!

    APK

    P.S.=> Do yourself a FAVOR - don't ever, EVER try me ever again OR I WILL MAKE SURE YOU SHIT ON YOURSELF yet again as always, easlly... apk

  • (Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 22, @07:02AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 22, @07:02AM (#1255254)

    Guess what Dalek? YOU LOSE, hosts work vs. Symbiote C2 server(s) per this line from a MUCH better article than the one used here from bradley13 per "configuration in the binary that used the git[.]bancodobrasil[.]dev domain as its C2 server" from https://www.intezer.com/blog/research/new-linux-threat-symbiote/ [intezer.com]

    & did I block that in my original posts here https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=49835&page=1&cid=1253504#commentwrap [soylentnews.org] on this BOGUS sockpuppet upmodding yourselves shithole website (which also noted FIREWALLS are invaluable here too, per wildcards (or even IP address use, URL domain/subdomain too in many as well))?

    YES I DID! I was correct...

    & YES, hosts work vs. this threat too stupid!

    FACT: hosts files block symbiote C2 servers which is all you really need to do to nullify their communication.

    FACT: Exfiltration isn't possible without orders either.

    FACT: Orders come from C2 servers!

    So YOU LOSE chump... a BETTER ARTICLE than what I used proves it for me!

    * THANKS FOR LOSING TO ME yet again, as always for you... try me again? THIS COMES UP AS PROOF (as well as another I have on YOU regarding using sources where YOU contradict yourself - want quotes of that too? ASK!)

    HOW ESPECIALLY EMBARASSING FOR YOU with your NO-DOUBT self-upmodded by sockpuppet accounts of YOURSELF too - now that YOU have EGG ON YOUR FACE fucko!

    APK

    P.S.=> Do yourself a FAVOR - don't ever, EVER try me ever again OR I WILL MAKE SURE YOU SHIT ON YOURSELF yet again as always, easlly... apk

  • (Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 22, @07:58AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 22, @07:58AM (#1255277)

    Guess what Dalek? YOU LOSE, hosts work vs. Symbiote C2 server(s) per this line from a MUCH better article than the one used here from bradley13 per "configuration in the binary that used the git[.]bancodobrasil[.]dev domain as its C2 server" from https://www.intezer.com/blog/research/new-linux-threat-symbiote/ [intezer.com]

    & did I block that in my original posts here https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=49835&page=1&cid=1253504#commentwrap [soylentnews.org] on this BOGUS sockpuppet upmodding yourselves shithole website (which also noted FIREWALLS are invaluable here too, per wildcards (or even IP address use, URL domain/subdomain too in many as well))?

    YES I DID! I was correct...

    & YES, hosts work vs. this threat too stupid!

    FACT: hosts files block symbiote C2 servers which is all you really need to do to nullify their communication.

    FACT: Exfiltration isn't possible without orders either.

    FACT: Orders come from C2 servers!

    So YOU LOSE chump... a BETTER ARTICLE than what I used proves it for me!

    * THANKS FOR LOSING TO ME yet again, as always for you... try me again? THIS COMES UP AS PROOF (as well as another I have on YOU regarding using sources where YOU contradict yourself - want quotes of that too? ASK!)

    HOW ESPECIALLY EMBARASSING FOR YOU with your NO-DOUBT self-upmodded by sockpuppet accounts of YOURSELF too - now that YOU have EGG ON YOUR FACE fucko!

    APK

    P.S.=> Do yourself a FAVOR - don't ever, EVER try me ever again OR I WILL MAKE SURE YOU SHIT ON YOURSELF yet again as always, easlly... apk

  • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday June 22, @11:31AM (1 child)

    by Thexalon (636) on Wednesday June 22, @11:31AM (#1255320)

    In farming, there are 2 kinds of limits you're up against: The limit where you absolutely cannot produce more right now, and the limit where you can produce more for a while but keep doing that and your farm stops being farm and starts becoming a disaster area.

    And the trouble is that capitalism always incentivizes farmers to produce the absolute maximum right now, regardless of what it does to their long-term prospects. Especially if their neighboring farms are doing the same thing, because what the least sustainable farm does in an area affects all of them.

    And so just a smattering of the problems that result include:
    - soil depletion [berkeley.edu]
    - soil loss [yale.edu]
    - algae blooms caused by overuse of fertilizer [worldoceanreview.com]
    - groundwater depletion [phys.org]

    This is the kind of problem that reared its ugly head before on a large scale [wikipedia.org].

    There are ways of fixing these issues and restoring the land, but they all involve maybe not producing so much right now and may be labor-intensive, which means they are usually rejected out of hand, while farmers engage in increasingly desperate and illegal methods to maintain their production level, until those don't work and then they lose their farm.

    And the worst part is that the farmers don't even see the profits from doing this to themselves, because the main effect of this kind of overproduction is that the commodity price of what the farmers are selling goes down, which is great for the mostly giant conglomerate distribution companies but makes the farmer's financial situation worse and with no option other than "produce even more" to solve their shortfall. It's a vicious cycle.

    --
    Alcohol makes the world go round ... and round and round.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 22, @08:24PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 22, @08:24PM (#1255444)

      And the trouble is that capitalism always incentivizes farmers to produce the absolute maximum right now, regardless of what it does to their long-term prospects.

      Not quite. That is what your fantasy world darth vader puppet version of capitalism does. Actual capitalism does no such thing.

      You see, capitalism drives the goal of maximum accumulation of capital, i.e. a store of value. A farm can do quite nicely with low running and finance costs, bumping along without stirring the loins of anyone near Wall Street but quite stable. Many small farmers do exactly that because it turns out to be a resilient way of running a farm. These are the ones who have survived the last fifteen years of shit and have their financial heads above water.

(1)