Philip Hart wrote: > > On Wed, 28 Jul 2004, Jerry Friedman wrote: > > >>--- Steve Brust <skzb at dreamcafe.com> wrote: >> >>>>>And I certainly don't see how the calories the plants miss because >>>>>of the overcast can be replaced. >>>>> >>>> >>>>This one I don't understand. The caloric content of plants shouldn't >>>>vary with sunlight. Do you mean >>>>that there will be fewer calories available from plants because there >>>>will fewer plants? >>> >>>Actually, it isn't all that complicated. _Principles of Field Crop >>>Production_ by Martin, Leonard, and Stamp, third edition, page 76 has a >>>very convenient chart showing how plants are effected by various light >>>spectra. Turns out "orange-red" is right up there; you don't lose very >>>much. >> >>In that case I apologize (thereby revealing that I'm not Dragaeran) >>for saying you might not have done the research. Also for not >>mentioning that plants go very lushly in the cloudiest parts of >>the world. > > > I still want to argue this point but not at 28.8k... > > Aside, congrats to the listmaster for killing the dupes. Wow, 28.8k. Makes you want to get out and push. Jose -- Jose Marquez \ Cthulhu 2004 jhereg69 at earthlink.net \ Why vote for http://home.earthlink.net/~jhereg69 \ the lesser evil?