Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TalkRational: We can't be bothered to ban you.

Topic: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World) (Read 210384 times) previous topic - next topic

VoxRat (+ 1 Hidden) and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.
  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39175
We were talking about nutrients getting leached away due to the heavy rainfall. Vox rat seems to think that this doesn't happen in the rainforest because of the types of plants in the rainforest.
lol wut?
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • JonF
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39176
We were talking about nutrients getting leached away due to the heavy rainfall. Vox rat seems to think that this doesn't happen in the rainforest because of the types of plants in the rainforest.
lol wut?
That's how he "reads" the statement that most of the nutrients are in the plant life.
"I would never consider my evaluation of his work to be fair minded unless I had actually read his own words." - Dave Hawkins

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39177
Just watched this video by Dr. Elaine Ingham ... https://youtu.be/GEtl09VZiSU

Very good primer on "What is Soil?"

Here's my summary ...

Healthy soil consists of 3 categories of stuff ...

1) Sand, silt, clay
2) Dead organic material
3) Live organisms

It IS possible to grow stuff without #2 and #3 ... I once did it myself with my hydroponic tomato farm ... I had trickle watering mixed with fertilizer and I did grow tomatoes.

But you don't need fertilizers like this if your soil contains all 3 of the above elements. 

If you test rainforest soil, you will find almost zero NPK and all the others Jon listed earlier.

But ... you get massive growth in the rainforest ... how?

#2 - dead organic matter which feeds ... #3 - soil organisms, which in turn feed the plants.

God's system vs. Man's system.

  • Fenrir
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39178
We were talking about nutrients getting leached away due to the heavy rainfall. Vox rat seems to think that this doesn't happen in the rainforest because of the types of plants in the rainforest. I say that it has nothing to do with the types of plants in the rainforest but has everything to do with the healthy soil in the rainforest in which we find organic minerals which don't get leached out instead of inorganic minerals which do get leached out.

Obvious strawman is obvious.

No-one is saying nutrients don't leach "because of the types of plants in the rainforest". The nutrients don't leach because they are in the biomass, not in the soil.
It's what plants crave.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39179
All of the above also applies to PASTURE which is growing in healthy organic soil too.  Doesn't matter if the pasture is erstwhile rainforest or not.  And, just like rainforest soil, if you test it for NPK, etc.  you will not detect any ... yet the grass will grow massively.

So Testy's claim that nutrients will leach out of erstwhile rainforest pasture is correct ... IF ... we're talking about an "industrial" pasture or a rowcrop megafarm. 

But his claim is NOT correct if we're talking about making pastures the HMG way.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39180
We were talking about nutrients getting leached away due to the heavy rainfall. Vox rat seems to think that this doesn't happen in the rainforest because of the types of plants in the rainforest. I say that it has nothing to do with the types of plants in the rainforest but has everything to do with the healthy soil in the rainforest in which we find organic minerals which don't get leached out instead of inorganic minerals which do get leached out.

Obvious strawman is obvious.

No-one is saying nutrients don't leach "because of the types of plants in the rainforest". The nutrients don't leach because they are in the biomass, not in the soil.
Voxrat implied that. 

If by "biomass" you mean not only tree trunks and leaves, etc. but also dead organic material both in and on top of the soil and also soil organisms like bacteria, protozoa and fungi ... then yes, you're correct, the nutrients are in the biomass.
  • Last Edit: May 17, 2018, 06:52:05 PM by Dave Hawkins

  • uncool
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39181
All of the above also applies to PASTURE which is growing in healthy organic soil too.  Doesn't matter if the pasture is erstwhile rainforest or not.  And, just like rainforest soil, if you test it for NPK, etc.  you will not detect any ... yet the grass will grow massively.

So Testy's claim that nutrients will leach out of erstwhile rainforest pasture is correct ... IF ... we're talking about an "industrial" pasture or a rowcrop megafarm. 
How many times do I have to repeat the fact that the study specifically says it was for a small pasture?

  • borealis
  • Administrator
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39182
We were talking about nutrients getting leached away due to the heavy rainfall. Vox rat seems to think that this doesn't happen in the rainforest because of the types of plants in the rainforest. I say that it has nothing to do with the types of plants in the rainforest but has everything to do with the healthy soil in the rainforest in which we find organic minerals which don't get leached out instead of inorganic minerals which do get leached out.

Obvious strawman is obvious.

No-one is saying nutrients don't leach "because of the types of plants in the rainforest". The nutrients don't leach because they are in the biomass, not in the soil.

If Dave actually read all the words in sources and knew what all the words mean, he'd be much better off.

Example: he keeps marvelling about soil micro-organisms, does not catch on that no one else is surprised about the role played by bacteria, fungi, etc., and thinks their existence somehow makes his argument.

https://microbewiki.kenyon.edu/index.php/Nitrogen_Cycling_in_Tropical_Rain_Forest_Soils

Please note:

Quote
A unique population of microbial species resides in tropical rainforests, many of which cannot be found in any other biome.

You ain't in Kansas anymore, Davey. Or Missouri.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39183
We were talking about nutrients getting leached away due to the heavy rainfall. Vox rat seems to think that this doesn't happen in the rainforest because of the types of plants in the rainforest. I say that it has nothing to do with the types of plants in the rainforest but has everything to do with the healthy soil in the rainforest in which we find organic minerals which don't get leached out instead of inorganic minerals which do get leached out.

Obvious strawman is obvious.

No-one is saying nutrients don't leach "because of the types of plants in the rainforest". The nutrients don't leach because they are in the biomass, not in the soil.
Voxrat implied that. 
No. He did not.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39184
All of the above also applies to PASTURE which is growing in healthy organic soil too.  Doesn't matter if the pasture is erstwhile rainforest or not.  And, just like rainforest soil, if you test it for NPK, etc.  you will not detect any ... yet the grass will grow massively.

So Testy's claim that nutrients will leach out of erstwhile rainforest pasture is correct ... IF ... we're talking about an "industrial" pasture or a rowcrop megafarm. 
How many times do I have to repeat the fact that the study specifically says it was for a small pasture?
Size doesn't matter.  It's the growing system.  Inorganic fertilizers?  Probably whether it was a small or large farm.

You still have not even got your head around the basic issue yet.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39185
We were talking about nutrients getting leached away due to the heavy rainfall. Vox rat seems to think that this doesn't happen in the rainforest because of the types of plants in the rainforest. I say that it has nothing to do with the types of plants in the rainforest but has everything to do with the healthy soil in the rainforest in which we find organic minerals which don't get leached out instead of inorganic minerals which do get leached out.

Obvious strawman is obvious.

No-one is saying nutrients don't leach "because of the types of plants in the rainforest". The nutrients don't leach because they are in the biomass, not in the soil.
Voxrat implied that. 
No. He did not.
Yes you did.  But it doesn't matter.  What matters is ... Do you agree that there is almost no nutrient leaching in rainforest soils?  Do you know why this is?  If so, please explain your view.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39186
We were talking about nutrients getting leached away due to the heavy rainfall. Vox rat seems to think that this doesn't happen in the rainforest because of the types of plants in the rainforest. I say that it has nothing to do with the types of plants in the rainforest but has everything to do with the healthy soil in the rainforest in which we find organic minerals which don't get leached out instead of inorganic minerals which do get leached out.

Obvious strawman is obvious.

No-one is saying nutrients don't leach "because of the types of plants in the rainforest". The nutrients don't leach because they are in the biomass, not in the soil.
Voxrat implied that. 
No. He did not.
Yes you did.
No, I did not.
You may have inferred that, somehow, from something I wrote that you're not bothering to quote. Who knows?
But no, that is not something I implied.

Quote
Do you agree that there is almost no nutrient leaching in rainforest soils? 
Tropical rainforest soils?
No. I don't agree with that.
Quote
Rainforest Soils

 Tropical rainforest soil is very thin and low in nutrients. With no winters or frosts to kill insects or microorganisms, and with lots of heat and humidity to help them grow and multiply, organic matter such as fallen leaves and twigs decomposes so quickly that only a thin layer of organic material covers the soils.

 The soils are heavily leached of nutrients by rain water. But in many cases that doesn't matter much because the nutrients are absorbed by other life forms before the rain has a chance to carry them away. Trees absorb the nutrients with thick mats of rootlets that grow close to the surface of the soil.
source
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • Fenrir
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39187
We were talking about nutrients getting leached away due to the heavy rainfall. Vox rat seems to think that this doesn't happen in the rainforest because of the types of plants in the rainforest. I say that it has nothing to do with the types of plants in the rainforest but has everything to do with the healthy soil in the rainforest in which we find organic minerals which don't get leached out instead of inorganic minerals which do get leached out.

Obvious strawman is obvious.

No-one is saying nutrients don't leach "because of the types of plants in the rainforest". The nutrients don't leach because they are in the biomass, not in the soil.
Voxrat implied that. 
No. He did not.
Yes you did.

No. He did not.

  But it doesn't matter.  What matters is ... Do you agree that there is almost no nutrient leaching in rainforest soils?

No. I do not. A conclusion based on staggering amounts of work including the paper Testy linked to and which you refuse to acknowledge. Nutrients are rapidly leached from most rainforest soils.

Do you know why this is?

Yes, actually

  If so, please explain your view.

The nutrients in a rainforest don't get rapidly leached from the soil, not because of some majic bullshit, but because only small amounts are in the soil and those that are are quickly reincorporated into biomass.

They don't get leached because they are not in the soil where they can be leached.
It's what plants crave.

  • uncool
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39188
All of the above also applies to PASTURE which is growing in healthy organic soil too.  Doesn't matter if the pasture is erstwhile rainforest or not.  And, just like rainforest soil, if you test it for NPK, etc.  you will not detect any ... yet the grass will grow massively.

So Testy's claim that nutrients will leach out of erstwhile rainforest pasture is correct ... IF ... we're talking about an "industrial" pasture or a rowcrop megafarm. 
How many times do I have to repeat the fact that the study specifically says it was for a small pasture?
Size doesn't matter.  It's the growing system.  Inorganic fertilizers?  Probably whether it was a small or large farm.

You still have not even got your head around the basic issue yet.
You still are making unwarranted assumptions with no evidence whatsoever. You are acting as if scientists are so utterly braindead as not to record fertilization by the exact chemical they are measuring.

Especially because of this:

Quote
[...]the pasture had no other anthropogenic influences such as artificial fertilization.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39189
We were talking about nutrients getting leached away due to the heavy rainfall. Vox rat seems to think that this doesn't happen in the rainforest because of the types of plants in the rainforest. I say that it has nothing to do with the types of plants in the rainforest but has everything to do with the healthy soil in the rainforest in which we find organic minerals which don't get leached out instead of inorganic minerals which do get leached out.

Obvious strawman is obvious.

No-one is saying nutrients don't leach "because of the types of plants in the rainforest". The nutrients don't leach because they are in the biomass, not in the soil.
Voxrat implied that. 
No. He did not.
Yes you did.
No, I did not.
You may have inferred that, somehow, from something I wrote that you're not bothering to quote. Who knows?
But no, that is not something I implied.

Quote
Do you agree that there is almost no nutrient leaching in rainforest soils? 
Tropical rainforest soils?
No. I don't agree with that.
Quote
Rainforest Soils

 Tropical rainforest soil is very thin and low in nutrients. With no winters or frosts to kill insects or microorganisms, and with lots of heat and humidity to help them grow and multiply, organic matter such as fallen leaves and twigs decomposes so quickly that only a thin layer of organic material covers the soils.

 The soils are heavily leached of nutrients by rain water. But in many cases that doesn't matter much because the nutrients are absorbed by other life forms before the rain has a chance to carry them away. Trees absorb the nutrients with thick mats of rootlets that grow close to the surface of the soil.
source
no they are not heavily leached by rainwater because there isn't anything there to be leached. All the nutrients are in the biomass as long as when we use that term we are talking about all the biomass dead and living both above ground and Underground.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39190
Fenrir Jekyll

Quote
   Do you agree that there is almost no nutrient leaching in rainforest soils?


No. I do not.  


Fenrir Hyde

Quote
   They don't get leached because they are not in the soil where they can be leached.   

All in one post!

Impressive!

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39191
:facepalm:

It's true:  you can't fix stupid.
G'night all.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • Fenrir
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39192
Soooo

When you cut down and burn all the biomass and put those nutrients into that soil, which is prone to leaching by it's very nature, and it rains, heavily and persistently, what happens*?


*psst, here's a hint, read the paper Testy linked, it might contain clues.
It's what plants crave.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39193
Duh.  It's gonna leach.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39194
So we shouldn't do that.

Which is what I've been saying all along.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39195
What I am proposing is to open up the canopy today least 50% sunlight penetration so grass will grow. Don't burn the felled trees. Cut them up for lumber, mulch them, etc. Feed the leaves to the animals.

No leaching. No soil degradation. Soil will actually uppen over time.

  • Fenrir
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39196
What I am proposing is to open up the canopy today least 50% sunlight penetration so grass will grow. Don't burn the felled trees. Cut them up for lumber, mulch them, etc. Feed the leaves to the animals.

No leaching. No soil degradation. Soil will actually uppen over time.

1. Clearing mile long swathes through vegetation is not "open up the canopy today least 50% sunlight penetration so grass will grow". It is broad-scale clearing.

2. You cannot (more than temporarily*) reduce a rainforest to 50% FPC (or PFC) and still have a rainforest, or any forest at all in most cases.

3. It does not matter what you do to the forest or the biomass you will not change the basic nature of the soil or the hydrological cycle. Nutrient released into the soil will be leached faster than it accumulates, assuming the soil itself hasn't simply been washed away.


*by temporarily i mean events like leaves being stripped by cyclones and stuff. Cyclone Yasi did a lot of that sort of damage and there has been quite some effort put into monitoring recovery, turns out even that temporary if widespread damage takes a long time to recover.
It's what plants crave.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39197
Dave if nutrients are in dead and decaying biomass they're going to get leached. There's very little of that in rainforest soils because of the rapid nature of the nutrient cycle. Grasslands are different. There's much more organic matter in the soil, much leads living biomass in the ecosystem, and nutrients are cycled much more slowly. But that doesn't because rainfall in those areas is much lowerso leaching isn't an issue.
Why do I bother?

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39198
Dave, this is GCSE geography. The most basic of basic soil science. Rainforest soils are different from grassland soils are different from temperate forest soils are different from desert soils. And a big part of that has to do with the climate, not just the vegetation.

Why do I bother?

  • Zombies!
  • These violent delights have violent ends.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39199
It's kinda funny how Dave is incorporating what we tell him is wrong with his pitch, then tries to use it against us.

We tell him we already have problems with fertilizer-heavy ecology-ignorant megafarming, and that his preaching needs to deal with the actual systems we support. And now, a month later, he's trying to pretend we're the ones preaching against megafarms and not dealing with his system.
Yes, replication with error. His views are evolving.
I really should call your department head and tell him or her how badly you are behaving while posing as a credentialed professional scientist.