Diets of Worms
More Useful Than You’d Expect
The Australian Tim Flannery is well~known for his concern about global warming and greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. He is also a scientist who researched Kangaroos and wallabies and written several books about them. ..On one occasion while doing field work on an island in Papua New Guinea a co~worker drew his attention to the stomach contents of a wallaby corpse being dissected.
Like kangaroos, wallabies are herbivores. Yet, in this wallaby’s stomach was a writhing mass of worms amidst the bits of green.
According to locals who often ate this type of wallaby, this was normal. Odd, unusual, perhaps unique among animals, but on this island for this creature apparently normal, though very surprising to these outsiders. It is an odd twist on a herbivore’s usual means of digestion.
Herbivores typically can digest only a small part of what they ingest. They really rely on microbes somewhere in their digestive tract to convert the vegetation into something they can absorb, which is organic acids: mainly propanoic, acetic and lactic.
The cow does this in the first chamber of its digestive tract, called the rumen, in which reside a variety of microbes, mostly various bacteria. Sheep and kangaroos; .. llamas, alpacas and goats; ..deer and bison all have have such a specialised chamber at the beginning of their digestive tracts.
That Wallaby’s Worms
Having worms in its stomach is certainly an odd sort of way to digest the vegetation that it eats, given that other herbivores rely entirely on microbes for such aid. ..This remarkable creature may be ingesting vegetation, but it is digesting excess worms and apparently living off them as its main food.
Equally remarkable is the fact these worms thrive living in the interior of the wallabies, in a chamber than is warm and wet though not filled up with liquid. Reproducing this on a large scale as a worm incubator should be something achievable — a machine fed vegetation and yielding a regular harvest of excess live worms. Which suggests several possibilities.
Birds eat worms: At least American robins are notorious for it. ..Domestic poultry (be it chickens, turkeys, or ducks) would likely eat worms readily enough. ..Swine are not fussy eaters and should be content to eat worms, dead ones anyway. ..And pelleted worms could be food for a good many creatures.
Diet of the worms
But what do the worms themselves eat? ..What are the ones inside that wallaby actually feasting on? Perhaps it is not the vegetation but the microbes attacking the vegetation.
If so, then anything the microbes attack should work — tree leaves, reeds, sedges, chopped stems of mature plants, cereal chaffs, ..all sorts of stuff that the animal with worms in its stomach would not find sufficiently sustaining in itself. ..
Given long enough time in the incubator, these all should be largely digested (some more slowly than others).
It is reasonable to envisage tubs of worms being fed hay, with worms harvested from the tubs being fed to swine, chickens, ducks. ..It is reasonable to envisage this happening in areas where the growing season is too short to reliably mature any cereal crop, ..places such as the clay belts of northern Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec, or elsewhere.
It is reasonable to expect this to work in remote communities that could then have their own eggs, poultry and pig products.
It is even reasonable to suggest raising dairy goats fed worms. Perhaps rabbits, perhaps cavies, or fish fed in ponds. Why not?
Such local food production would certainly improve the lives of the people in such remote communities. …Even also in communities not so remote, should they go this wormy route.
Alot About A Lot
Grammar matters, the old bat.
“He owns a lot of land near the lake” is completely ambiguous because of the contrary meaning ‘a lot’ has acquired due to widespread misuse.
This statement could refer to one plot of land near a lake, though not on it, perhaps a cottage lot not on the lakefront but set some ways back. ..Then again — these days — it might also indicate ownership of a large extent of land near the lake, farmland or woodland perhaps.
The ambiguity arises because ‘a lot’ has come to mean a large amount, even though technically this is absurd.
‘Lots of’ may have this meaning without ambiguity because it is a plurality of small quantities, each of which is one lot, or a lot [singular]. A bunch of lots may sometimes amount to a large quantity, though a single lot definitely never is, not logically anyway.
Lottery Ticket
A ticket in a lottery is one among hundreds or thousands or millions. ..Each ticket or lot is entered in the draw, the totality of these lots comprise the lottery. ..To draw lots is the same on a small scale. ..Land divided into lots (or plots) means each lot is a small part of the whole. ..One’s lot in life refers to an individual’s role in the larger scheme of things. …Certainly, it does not indicate abundance.
To allot something is to allocate, assign, distribute, or apportion a share of something, such as a task or a quantity of some sort: _be it game meat or fish, new bonds for sale among bankers, or the booty of pirates [not that booty].
It is also legitimate to join the ‘a’ with lot without doubling the letter ell, hence alot. ..Here, the_ ‘a’_ as prefix negates the meaning of the word to which it is attached.
This use of ‘a’ is typical, rendering the meaning of the word atypical. ..So, while lot means a small amount, ..alot then means the opposite. ..Hence, while_ a lot_ is ambiguous and its meaning must be discovered by context, alot is perfectly clear: “He owns alot of land near the lake” clearly does not refer to only one lot.
Examples
Political and apolitical, part and apart, septic and aseptic, rhythmic and arhythmic, tonal and atonal …all these are other examples.
American editors have many peculiarities, including an aversion to distinguish between bring and take. ..While that is annoying, another of their quirks can cause actual confusion in spoken speech.
They have taken to using a historical, which when spoken sounds the same as _ahistorical_, its exact opposite. ..For this reason an historical should be used in print because it is needed to avoid possible confusion in spoken speech.
Then there is petite and appetite (as in bon appetit), inaccurate as an ‘example’ if mildly amusing — except perhaps to the odd lard ass. ..But then, the petite person may have quite an appetite for sex (rather than being asexual) and all that carrying on would no doubt help keep them petite, even also physically fit, or at least pretty flexible.
Agnostic is another instance of the ‘a’ as negation, in this case of a Greek word for knowing or knowledge. ..So, being agnostic literally means being unable to know. ..Its usual use is to indicate doubt about the existence of the Christian god, and/or the divinity of Christ. ..This last is something Jews flatly deny: they are not agnostic about it at all.
Alot more to say on this I do not have, but to end on a slightly macabre note ….
Asphyxia is yet another instance of the a _ as prefix _ used to provide negation. It derives from the ancient Greek sphuxis ..which refers to one’s pulse. Odd that such a general term is now used solely for a lack of air being cause for the lack of pulse.
Concisely__ A lot may be one painting in an art auction, while alot, its opposite, may be what was generously paid for it.
Several websites very oddly state that alot is mistaken, a wrong spelling of a lot! ..Utter nonsense –and some of these sites claim to be about grammar!
Being Rid of Nickel Coins
20 and 30 cent coins will do nicely
Fresh milk is a standard product that has been regulated in price for decades in Manitoba. Looking at milk prices over many years gives a good indication of the value of money now compared with many years back. Indeed, it is one marker of inflation.
Circa 1950, it took 16 pennies to buy a quart (1.13 litres) of whole milk in Winnipeg. ..By 2010, it took nearly 16 dimes to buy a litre of whole milk in the city. ..A dime then got less milk than a penny had sixty years’ previous.
Yet, our coinage is much the same, except we now also have loonies and toonies ($1 and $2 coins). …But in purchasing power the loonie is less than that earlier era’s dime. ..So, no surprise its dime store is today’s dollar store — strangely, they are not all called ‘loonie’ stores.
Since today’s dime buys less than the penny of decades ago, why do we need any coin smaller than a dime? _After all, society functioned perfectly well in 1950 with no coin smaller than a penny: so today surely we could function equally well with no coin smaller than a dime.
The Mint
Early in 2012 the Royal Canadian Mint quit making pennies, though they were not formally recalled. _Nor do we need the nickel_ Soon the dime will become our smallest coin, and prices thence could be quoted in tenths of a dollar (though likely won’t be). New Zealand withdrew its nickel in 2005 and so likely will Australia before many more years pass. ..Since 2012 the smallest denomination coin in South Africa is a ten cent piece.
Naturally, once the dime becomes the smallest coin, our other coins will need to be some multiple of it. The quarter would then have to go. New Zealand uses 10_20_50 as its coins less than a dollar, as could we. _However, would it not really be more useful to use 10_20_30 instead?
Surprisingly, the dime then is only required to make ten cents change! All other combinations from 20 to 90 cents can be done efficiently with only 20 and 30 cent coins:
- cents: _90 _80 _70 _ 60 _50 _40 _30 _20
- … 20: _____1 __2 _____1 __2 ____1
- …30: __ 3 __2 __1 __2 __1 __ __1 __
A moment’s reflection shows that the dime is not needed at all! _In order to pay ten cents you give a 30 cent coin and receive a 20 cent piece (or give a $1 coin and receive three 30 cent coins), while to get ten cents you do the reverse.
Our coins then could simply be 20 cent, 30, $1, and $2. Having only four coins in circulation would certainly make things simpler at the till. Shopkeepers, restaurants, bars, credit unions and banks would all find their lives a little easier with fewer types of coins to stock. This may be done in two steps:
And so Simple — only a 20 cent and a 30 cent coin smaller than a dollar.
Lightbulbs and Dimbulbs
Where matters in being Green
Energy-efficient light bulbs are touted as being green, as being a better environmental choice than traditional incandescent bulbs. ..And no doubt there are many places in the world where this is true. However, what is ‘green’ behaviour in one place might not be so in another, for green behaviours are not necessarily universal.
Incandescent bulbs give off a large amount of heat as well as light: indeed, only about three percent of the electricity consumed is given off as light, the rest generating heat.
More energy-efficient lights give off much less heat for the same level of illumination; ..they convert electricity into light more efficiently and consume less electricity than incandescent bulbs. ..They should really be called ‘electricity~efficient’ or ‘electricity~sparing’, because that is what they are.
Using less electricity to illuminate our homes is on its own terrific, so perhaps it is a good thing to urge homeowners everywhere to switch to electricity~sparing lighting, ..or even force such behaviour by banning the sale of incandescent bulbs.
Yet, is this true everywhere? ..Is such a switch universally ‘green’? ..Let’s test that presumption by comparing the same size and sort of house in Calgary with one in Winnipeg.
Comparing houses
During winter both homes will need heating as well as light, and both would have heating by natural gas furnaces. ..
Let’s presume they are equally efficient in burning natural gas. …The Winnipeg house will use more gas, though, as it faces a harsher climate in winter, not being warmed by Chinook winds from time to time as the house in Calgary will be.
In order to reduce the amount of gas used for heating, a house may be super~insulated.
This definitely has more appeal for a Winnipeg homeowner, who uses more natural gas for heating and where it costs more per unit as well. …So, in order to keep the comparison accurate, either both houses would have such insulation, or neither will — it does not matter which, as long as both houses are the same in this respect.
Of course, there is concern about CO2 emissions, and such concern bears directly upon the use of electricity~sparing lighting, ..due to the situation facing the two houses being very different.
Electricity Use
Electricity for the Calgary house comes mainly from coal~fired generating plants, which emit a variety of pollutants as well as large amounts of CO2. ..Coal is a fossil fuel, and so burning it adds to atmospheric CO2 levels. For the Calgary house, electricity-sparing lighting means burning less coal, which would be a good thing.
The situation in Winnipeg is very different, because all the electricity is generated from hydro-electric plants (other than a minor amount from windmills).
In winter, use of electricity-sparing lighting has an adverse effect on CO2 production, in that the bulbs give off significantly less heat and one consequence is the gas-fired furnace will be on more. ..Incandescent bulbs, in giving off more heat, somewhat reduce the amount of gas being consumed. This situation is the opposite to the one in Calgary.
Now in case you think this is a minor effect, consider a typical suburban home early on a December evening.
How much wattage of lights are likely to be on? ..Incandescent lights, that is. Would twenty bulbs of 60 watts each be about right, if not double that? ..Twenty is nearly the same as having a 1200 watt heater on. ..That is a significant amount of heat, especially if the house is super-insulated.
It is thus a dim~bulb idea to promote the use of electricity-sparing lighting in Winnipeg during winter.
How can this be ‘energy-efficient’ when it causes more natural gas to be burnt? ..And natural gas is a fossil fuel, so burning more of it is distinctly not so good as using light~bulb heating as a gas~sparing measure.
Winnipeg is on daylight saving time, so twice a year the clocks are adjusted by one hour. It would be good practice in Winnipeg to then take out incandescent bulbs each spring and re:install them each fall. ..That would be ‘green’ in Winnipeg, though quite inappropriate for the Calgary homeowner.
[But if the generating plant switched from coal to wood pellets, or pellets of annual plants, that would be different, for these do not add to atmospheric CO2 levels. Burning them is a re:cycling event.]
Hot Water
Consider also the supply of hot water in these houses. ..An electrical hot water heater makes sense in one house but not in the other.
In Calgary, having a gas-fired heater is better than an electrical one, because then less coal is burnt. ..Natural gas emits mostly only CO2 and not the other pollutants that coal does. ..It is a cleaner fossil fuel technology. ..But of course in Winnipeg an electrical heater is the better choice, as it avoids CO2 emission entirely.