Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational: Ceasefire!!!!11!1!

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - RAFH

1
I love all of the conservatives' obsession with apeing soldier culture with all of these dumb challenge coins
Of course they love military culture. It's so regimental. There's a clear line of command, or as some describe it, chain of asses to kiss. Everything is orderly and by the book. There's rules and regulations. Nobody owns anything. There's little to no chance of getting fired unless you really want to.

Ironically, it's everything they eschew in their literature and rants. The perfect authoritarian state.
2
Self-reflection is an alien concept to you isn't it Dave?
Nah, he just uses a different kind of mirror. His reflects what he wants to be.
3
Jon quit talking out of your ass. If you make an authoritative statement like that give me a citation of somebody who has knowledge based on their own experience. It's fine that you don't have your own experience, but at least have the decency to refer to someone else's work to support your authoritative statements.
Dave quit talking out of your ass. If you make an authoritative statements as you have give me a citation of somebody who has knowledge based on their own experience. It's fine that you don't have your own experience, but at least have the decency to refer to someone else's work to support your authoritative statements.

As for my statements your avoidance is pathetic. You could argue whether a light gap as discussed in that article could support one or two sheep or goats, but the point is that the light gap caused by a tree fall will be far smaller than your 300 feet by one mile swath.

The fact that you don't understand scaling is long-established. Ten times larger than one tree fall is going to be significantly different. 100 times larger will be vastly different. When you extrapolate results you need to justify the extrapolation. You don't.

I can't prove you don't know what "edge effect", but it's an educated guess based on the fact it's been mentioned as an important factor and you have ignored it. But you can easily prove me wrong. Define "edge effect" in your own words and discuss how it relates to your plan.

Betcha can't.

One thing Bluffy apparently ignores is the edge effect re area of light gap. In a natural tree fall, there's probably a hole left in the canopy that's perhaps 60' to 100' in diameter. That's got and area of between 2800sf and 8500sf and a circumference of between 190' and 310' for a ratio of area to circumference of between about 15 and 27. In just that range, one can see the power of the 3/2 rule. Extend that ratio to a 300' wide by 5280' long strip, it's 1,584,000sf divided by 11,160' = a bit over 140.  There's a lot more edge for the small parcel than the larger parcels. And the trend is progressive. The small parcel has a lot of influence from it's edges. The large parcel has a lot less and it's a lot farther from the edge to the center. The reason small light gaps regenerate quickly is the surrounding edge contributes greatly, while with the large parcels, there's way more area per foot of edge and way more of that area much farther from the edge.
4
Geez no. Any animal can go feral at any time. But there would be almost zero negative effect if similar animals already existed in that area.

No I'm sure that all trees do not coppice well. But I'm sure there are many rainforest species that do.
From just an hour before.
Jon quit talking out of your ass. If you make an authoritative statement like that give me a citation of somebody who has knowledge based on their own experience. It's fine that you don't have your own experience, but at least have the decency to refer to someone else's work to support your authoritative statements.
Maybe the above should be:
I, Bluffy, should quit talking out of my ass. If I make authoritative statements like above, then I should give the readers a citation of somebody who has knowledge based on their own experience. It's fine that I don't have my own relevant experience, nor education, nor training, but at least I should have the decency to refer to someone else's work to support my authoritative statements, but I don't. And I'm not going to. Ever. Except as a quote-mine.
5

At the risk of watching Borealis' head explode yet again, my answer is...

"Don't know don't care"

Because nature Knows Best. The sheep and goats will select what they want to eat from what is there.

Just like they do here in Missouri.

Your 'don't know, don't care' attitude is the main reason you get so much aggro from the rest of us. You're the poster child for the havoc humans cause in the environment.

What if 'nature's knowing best' is that goats have no business there and should starve or sicken and die?

Lol you don't let your animals select what they want to eat in Missouri! You only let them eat what YOU decide they should eat.
LOL yeah I'm the poster child for environmental havoc. I've killed all the grass and the trees and wildlife at my place ... like that elm tree I pruned, for instance. Oh wait.

I guess if we really want to put the goats in control of their own lives, we should just eliminate fences all together and let them roam free and hope they come back at dinner time to let us milk them! Free choice, baby!
For Bluffy, there's nothing other than All < Some > None.
6
I'm putting Zombies on ignore along with RAFH ... S/N ratio is just too low.
So you're just going to pretend you don't see his posts, while carefully reading them in the hope you'll find something to comment on and strike a 'gotcha'?

Because that's what you do with RAFH.
Ooooh, now that you describe it like that, it feels kinda of icky.
7
Big buttons.
Yep, there's Bluffy. In full bloom. Discussing his favorite subject: What an amazingly BRILLIANT guy He is, endowed as He is with His high speed mind that runs circles around other people.

Totally MINDKaPPed.
8
And what will replace them when they are eaten?  Don't the nutrients end up being made into goat, Dave?
ETA:
Quote
Nothing will be destroyed.  I'm simply going to open up some "light gaps" and feed sheep and goats therein.  The end.
No, you won't do anything.  What have you done to feed the homeless?  Nothing.
                                            What have you done to improve your carbon footprint? Nothing.
                                            What have you done to improve your shack, like rendering? Nothing.
I get it, Dave.  You are an angry troll living in a pile of haybales, shitting in a bucket, yelling at a bunch of people who are smarter than you are, about everything.  They're laughing at you.  They poke fun at your "F" bombs, your pathetic forays with hookers, your inability to learn.
But guess what? 
You did, and continue to do this stuff to yourself. 
You could actually be a contributing member of society, instead of a laughing stock
Well, hypothetically speaking, it's possible that a person could do that, but in the real world, with a real Bluffy, there's not a rat's chance at a cat show.
9
Trump isn't a real business man.

Trump is going to start World War 3 with China.

Trump is going to piss off China and not be able to reduce the trade deficit.

Trump is not going to be in office in January of 2019 and will probably wind up in jail.

And last but not least... You can't raise goats and sheep in light gaps in the rainforest.

Oh my sides!
Leaving out the quotation marks is not going to convince anyone these are not fake quotes.

As for the "real businessman", would you not want your president to be at least a "good businessman"? Not just an imbecile asshole with an inheritance?
Why would you think I'm trying to convince anyone that they are real quotes? 

And if you don't think he's a good businessman, then you simply don't know much about being in business.
I tend to doubt thinking Drumpf is a good businessman is a criteria for knowing much about being in business.
But you missed the point of "good". It does not mean, in this context, that he is responsible for a good bottom line.
You do realize that sometimes screwing your subcontractors and fucking old people out of their life savings and lying your ass off comes back to bite you. Not always, but sometimes. Just like con-men are not always successful in their cons and sometimes they get caught and they sometimes get their just rewards.

10
I'm putting Zombies on ignore along with RAFH ... S/N ratio is just too low.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

I tend to doubt Bluffy even knows how to put someone on "Ignore", one of those things his BRILLIANT high speed mind is just too BRILLIANTLY high speed to even consider attempting. Sort of like the famous hyper-light fighter pilot hero dismissing the idea it would even be worth considering landing on that little dirt runway down there.
11
Dave, when a single tree falls it doesn't clear a saw the 300ft wide and a mile long.  You're not proposing to clear a little false here and there at the kind of rate you'd expect to be happening in the forest anyway. You wanted to "thin the canopy by 50%". All those animals attracted to light gaps by the abundance of food? Normally they live in the canopy. Remove half of it and you destroy their habitat.
Is opening up some "light gaps" comparable to those described in the article the same as thinning the entire rainforest canopy to 50%?  No I don't think so.  I stopped talking about the 50% thing when I saw too many heads exploding.  We can talk about that again later once you've gotten your heads around "light gaps."
But babee, it's just the tip, that's all!
12
Oh crap why did it copy all that?
Because .html is not .txt
This is the guy that was going to try to build a simulation of his island prison? 
The guy that can't make basic forum functions work, and hasn't mastered cut and paste?


And in his mind, the next Global Dictator, by popular demand, of course. In consideration of his BRILLIANT high speed mind.
13
Rainforest.

Focus.
Leaching

Focus.
None to speak of in rainforest soil. 

But let's think about this ...

If I cut ONE big tree in the rainforest down to the stump and coppice it every year ... just ONE ... a big one ... So that some sunlight can reach a small patch of forest floor ...

What will happen?

Will I suddenly experience leaching?

Why or why not?

Looks like you found your answer:

Quote
A common event in the tropical rainforest is the fall of an emergent tree, usually during a tropical thunderstorm. In fact, it is estimated that tree turnover rates in some rainforests are every 80-135 years. When one of these giants--laden with lianas connected to neighboring trees--falls, it takes out a sizeable portion of the canopy. This hole in the canopy is known as a "light gap" because direct sunlight reaches the floor in contrast to the usual 1-5 percent under full canopy conditions. The opening of a light gap brings many changes to the section of rainforest.

The light gap is rapidly colonized by the same pioneer species that colonize clearings including trees like cecropia, balsa, macaranga, musanga, and bamboo, and shrubby plants like gingers, bananas, nightshades, climbing lianas, and rattan palms. These species are well-adapted for rapid growth, but not for long-term existence in the forest. Their often white wood and leaves with poor chemical protection are subject to infection and infestation by insects. Generally, these pioneers flower rapidly and produce numerous fruits, but are soon overtaken by the hardier, better adapted hardwood trees which fill in the gap in the canopy. Many forest tree species are dependent on light gaps to complete their life cycle.

As a result of the increased light and abundance of fruits produced by gap colonists, light gaps are areas of increased animal activity. Carnivorous animals follow the herbivorous animals that are attracted to the fruiting plants.

I don't see anything about leaching :dunno:
Exactly.

Leaching is related to industrial ag not small scale HMG.

These boneheads don't get that.
Yeah, that's it. Leaching is caused by industrial ag. That's a fact, for really reals in real reality.
Except you might want to explain how that rain forest soil got so low on nutrients. Was the Amazon rain forest the result of ancient astronauts or even the Quantum Engineers conducting industrial agriculture way back in history, before there was any rain forest. And they killed off all the soil life and destroyed those soils and then just left it there to its fate. To be taken over by jungles and all sorts of nasty beasties.
14
Trump isn't a real business man.
That's not what's been said. What has been said is Drumpf is not a very good businessman. He hasn't really done all that well, certainly not in comparison to others and certainly not in comparison to his own and his supporters' own appraisals of his success.

Trump is going to start World War 3 with China.
This is also false. No one has suggested Drumpf is going to start World War 3 with China, what has been said, and it's pretty much happened, at least the opening shots, is Drumpf has started a trade war with China.

Trump is going to piss off China and not be able to reduce the trade deficit. 
That's certainly possible. So far his efforts haven't made that any less likely.

Trump is not going to be in office in January of 2019 and will probably wind up in jail.
Yes, that was a bet Pingu made with VoxRat. It's the nature of bets, the bettor believes there is enough of a probability of something happening they are willing to risk a stake, in this case, a fairly small amount of money to be paid to a charity that does good work (at least in her opinion (mine too)) that she very likely would have donated to anyway, so not much to lose there. More of a minor manifesto than a huge risk.

And last but not least... You can't raise goats and sheep in light gaps in the rainforest.

Oh my sides!

Nobody has said one can not raise sheep and goats in a light gap in a rain forest. But you aren't dealing honestly here, your plan as you have stated it numerous times from the very beginning of this venture is to convert the entire planet to your fantasy, that includes all the rain forest, all the boreal forest and all the temperate forest as well as the near deserts of the high plateaus and all of the swamps and pretty much everything else. It's as I suggested before with the fellow making the sales pitch to his reluctant partner with the promise he'll just put a little of his dick in.

And it's not so much of a matter of one could not raise sheep and goats in a light gap in a rain forest, but for how long one could do that.

And there's the whole issue of whether or not that's a good use of rain forest. Is it good for the rain forest. Really don't care about the sheep and goats well being, there are lots of places where they can browse, even get paid for doing so, at least the goats. There's a fellow around here that makes a living renting out his goats to clear overgrown plots of land. It's a win, win, win solution, the goats get fed, and get to get out and about and have a bit of adventure, their tender makes money, the plot gets cleared of weeds and berry vines and whatever else, it costs the land owner very little, it's very light on the land ecologically (the land even gets a tiny bit of "uppening" due to the inevitable goat shit) and passersby get a little bit of entertainment.

Lastly, there's whether or not we should go with your fantasy of all an all meat and milk diet for everyone. That is, in its very definition, a monoculture. And in your rendition of it, a global monoculture.

All from the mind of a known internet crackpot suffering from severe MINDKaPPing. One with little to no relevant education, training and/or experience in any of the many diverse fields such a venture involves and a rather unsavory disposition. That alone pretty much disqualifies it or him from serious consideration.
15
Politics and Current Events / Re: Trumpocalypse
trump has done a lot of damage, but I think it's being overstated.  examples:

he didn't repeal obamacare, he just repealed the individual mandate.  the good things, like medicaid expansion and guaranteed issue, are intact.  scrapping the mandate may lead to the unraveling of obamacare, or it just may cause a bunch of temporary damage before the system ends up being salvaged or at least propped up.

he didn't end the iran deal, he just pulled the US out of it.  all the other countries are still party to it.  like repealing the mandate endangers obamacare, this endangers the iran deal,  but it might survive this shock and continue forward.  both the Iranians and the Europeans seem intent on keeping it going.  unilateral sanctions from the US won't affect that much.  now trump also threatened to sanction European companies who do business with them.  a lot will depend on whether trump makes good on the latter threat, and on whether the europeans, in turn, stand up to him and shield those companies.  iirc, the Europeans did so before with previous iran sanctions, and they don't like trump, so hopefully they'd show backbone again.

one area of total destruction to Obama's legacy is the scrapping of carbon regulations.  but in real-world effect, even that is mitigated by natural gas continuing to drive coal out of business, and photovoltaics being competititve now and continuing to get cheaper every year.
So, not a matter of Drumpf not trying to cause damage, just he wasn't able to cause as much damage as he attempted.
16
What astounds me is that Dave has been there. On the ground. Seen rainforest in all its splendour. And yet, here we are.

I can only guess he has a sort of self-inflicted blindness when it comes to plants, be they daisies or vanilla orchids or lambkill.

I wonder how many of those edge colonising plants are things like dumb cane or bead vine or castor plant or whatever plant it is that poison dart frogs ingest their poison from.
Probably most of them. And all my goats and sheep will probably die and the ones that don't will yield poison milk and the Wai Wai people will drink it and die no doubt.

Lol
Nothing quite so dramatic,
Just the milk will contain an ingredient that causes impotence and when the Wai Wai find out, your ass will be grass. In the most HMGest way possible.
17
It's one thing to be a retard if you can't help it. It's quite another thing to be a retard and think that you're smart.
Does the phrase "militantly ignorant narcissistic DK poster person" ring a bell?
Except, you're excuse is not that you're a retard, not naturally anyway, it's more the MINDKaPPing described above.
18
No of course not.
I've noticed over the years that quite a few people talk out their asses about things they don't know. You would think with all their science training that they would make tentative statements instead of bold authoritative statements especially when it's obvious to everyone that they haven't studied the topic. It seems that the primary motivation for this ass talking is the need to always take the opposite position from Dave the mainstream. That's their Orthodoxy and it clouds lots of their posts.
You've just described yourself. In RSPL no less.
19
Cut the trees and the water goes in the creek faster. The faster it moves, even underground,  the more soluble material goes with it (though above ground movement does also increase and takes more solid material through erosion too). If you cut down the trees you can't keep the water out of the creek is a shorthand way to say all that though. Hmg is not going to affect that much of the system to overcome the effect of the water.
If what people are saying is true about rainforest tree roots being shallow, and we cut down some of them, except we don't kill them, we leave the stumps for coppicing and other plants grow better because of more sunlight reaching them, then I fail to see how any water flow would be affected.  You seem to be reciting things you've read while not really engaging your brain.  I encounter this constantly.  It's an unfortunate human phenomenon.
Now, quite a bit of the rain doesn't reach the ground, and what does is slowed by caroming off leaves and whatnot..

So you are proposing to add water that hits the ground harder.

And make many other plants grow much worse, destroying the ecosystem.

Many rainforest trees cannot be coppiced.
You are talking out your ass. Come on man. You can do better than that.
Well then, Bluffy, present your refutations. That's all you have to do and JonF will be really embarrassed. And we of the Darwin Club will make him sit in a corner with a dunce hat on.
20
Cut the trees and the water goes in the creek faster. The faster it moves, even underground,  the more soluble material goes with it (though above ground movement does also increase and takes more solid material through erosion too). If you cut down the trees you can't keep the water out of the creek is a shorthand way to say all that though. Hmg is not going to affect that much of the system to overcome the effect of the water.
If what people are saying is true about rainforest tree roots being shallow, and we cut down some of them, except we don't kill them, we leave the stumps for coppicing and other plants grow better because of more sunlight reaching them, then I fail to see how any water flow would be affected.  You seem to be reciting things you've read while not really engaging your brain.  I encounter this constantly.  It's an unfortunate human phenomenon.
First of all, there's no "if" involved in the validity of rain forest tree roots being shallow, they are shallow because that's where what nutrients there are reside in the very thin soils. Soils that are typically very high pH. It's not a question of "if", it's an observed fact. The reason tree roots go deep is for two reasons, to get water (with dissolved nutrients) or to hold on against wind, current or land slippage.
Secondly, identify the rain forest trees that can be coppiced. That may throw a bit of a monkey wrench into your whole plan.
Yes, when sunlight reaches the forest floor, there's an explosion of growth, mostly, as others have said, of young saplings. In a small patch, such as opened up by removing one tree, there might initially be an explosion of other plants like grasses, assuming there's some source of seed near by. But those will be quickly overtaken by the shrubs that will then be quickly overtaken by the saplings.
Eventually, the soils will return to a low nutrient status. Either by uptake of the various growing plants or by leaching.
21
Dave in the rainforest as much as possible is cycled as quickly as possible. It isn't cut down and exported hundreds of miles off site. So you don't need to add commercial (or indeed any) fertilisers, because the nutrients that aren't leached stay on site, and the system has adapted to cycle the nutrients that are susceptible to leaching as rapidly as possible, and most of those are locked up in the canopy.
And while the rainforest flora have evolved to grab those nutrients as efficiently as possible from that thin skin of topsoil, they obviously can't be 100% efficient. The occasional ion that is not snagged by a plant or a microbe and gets washed into the underlying soil is leached and gone for good.  There has to be input from somewhere.

African dust keeps Amazon blooming
Quote
Dust from one of the world's most desolate places is providing essential fertilizer for one of the most lush, scientists have discovered. Significant amounts of plant nutrients have been found in atmospheric mineral dust blowing from a vast central African basin to the Amazon, where it could compensate for poor rainforest soils. ...

"The Amazon is essentially a leached or leaching system," says Bristow. Nutrients in the soil are washed away by rains. "So although it is very productive, it is actually quite nutrient-poor."

IIRC this came up in a previous Hawkins-fisking years ago in another context.
Oh here we go again. This was beautiful. The Sahara Desert is actually a good thing because it keeps the Amazon rainforest going.

ROFL
It is an important factor in keeping the rainforest going. 



There's a similar effect of dust from the Gobi fertilizing Hawaii. It's absolutely critical. Hawaii gets the a regular, well in a geologic sense, dusting from wind storms coming from the Asian mainland.
22
Zombies has gone "Full RAFH"
Congratulations Zombies, I welcome you to the club.
Please remember to bring no disgrace upon this sacred institution, founded by our den mother, Pingu.
23
Dave in the rainforest as much as possible is cycled as quickly as possible. It isn't cut down and exported hundreds of miles off site. So you don't need to add commercial (or indeed any) fertilisers, because the nutrients that aren't leached stay on site, and the system has adapted to cycle the nutrients that are susceptible to leaching as rapidly as possible, and most of those are locked up in the canopy.
And while the rainforest flora have evolved to grab those nutrients as efficiently as possible from that thin skin of topsoil, they obviously can't be 100% efficient. The occasional ion that is not snagged by a plant or a microbe and gets washed into the underlying soil is leached and gone for good.  There has to be input from somewhere.

African dust keeps Amazon blooming
Quote
Dust from one of the world's most desolate places is providing essential fertilizer for one of the most lush, scientists have discovered. Significant amounts of plant nutrients have been found in atmospheric mineral dust blowing from a vast central African basin to the Amazon, where it could compensate for poor rainforest soils. ...

"The Amazon is essentially a leached or leaching system," says Bristow. Nutrients in the soil are washed away by rains. "So although it is very productive, it is actually quite nutrient-poor."

IIRC this came up in a previous Hawkins-fisking years ago in another context.
Oh here we go again. This was beautiful. The Sahara Desert is actually a good thing because it keeps the Amazon rainforest going.

ROFL
Oh dear, another major oops for Bluffy.
Oh well, another subject for him to get schooled on and someday down the line, he will have to be reminded of it.
24
Dave in the rainforest as much as possible is cycled as quickly as possible. It isn't cut down and exported hundreds of miles off site. So you don't need to add commercial (or indeed any) fertilisers, because the nutrients that aren't leached stay on site, and the system has adapted to cycle the nutrients that are susceptible to leaching as rapidly as possible, and most of those are locked up in the canopy.
And while the rainforest flora have evolved to grab those nutrients as efficiently as possible from that thin skin of topsoil, they obviously can't be 100% efficient. The occasional ion that is not snagged by a plant or a microbe and gets washed into the underlying soil is leached and gone for good.  There has to be input from somewhere.

African dust keeps Amazon blooming
Quote
Dust from one of the world's most desolate places is providing essential fertilizer for one of the most lush, scientists have discovered. Significant amounts of plant nutrients have been found in atmospheric mineral dust blowing from a vast central African basin to the Amazon, where it could compensate for poor rainforest soils. ...

"The Amazon is essentially a leached or leaching system," says Bristow. Nutrients in the soil are washed away by rains. "So although it is very productive, it is actually quite nutrient-poor."

IIRC this came up in a previous Hawkins-fisking years ago in another context.
He still hasn't figured out how to keep vegetation growing while the nutrients are tied up in his goats as goat meat, I wonder where the hell he thinks nutrients will come from?
Goat shit. Good old 100% grass fed raw goat shit. It's magically nutritious.
25
No one has missed the point, Hawkins.
The fact remains:  there is a dynamic equilibrium between minerals concentrated in bacteria (or protozoa, etc.) and floating free, soluble, in the soil. The free, soluble, ions can (1) be taken up by another microbe (2) be leached by rainwater or (3) be taken up by a plant root. Yes, proximity of the source increases the probability of (3). But it's still nowhere close to 100%.
I don't know what the percent is. But it's got to be pretty close to 100% because soil scientists like Elaine Ingham tell us that if you measure the soluble fertilizer content of rainforest soils you will barely get a reading at all. Which is really interesting because it tells us that some of the best plant growth on the planet is achieved entirely without a man-made product which most mainstream agriculturalists think is indispensable for growing plants. That is, commercial fertilizers.
Dave in the rainforest as much as possible is cycled as quickly as possible. It isn't cut down and exported hundreds of miles off site. So you don't need to add commercial (or indeed any) fertilisers, because the nutrients that aren't leached stay on site, and the system has adapted to cycle the nutrients that are susceptible to leaching as rapidly as possible, and most of those are locked up in the canopy.

The reason you barely get a reading for soluble fertilizer content in the rainforests is because if it wasn't sucked up almost as soon as it was produced by the trees it would get leached away. Which is what happens when you get rid of the trees. What little nutrients you put back by burning or composting the cleared forests rapidly leach away. There isn't a store of nutrients that you can rely on as in Missouri or other grasslands.


I agree with most of this.

And I agree that if you remove large numbers of trees like the mega farms do then what you are saying here is generally what will happen.

BUT ...

I'm not proposing to remove large numbers of trees. In fact I've asked a question about what do you think would happen if I just removed one large tree, and I didn't even remove it completely but left the roots and stump in place for coppicing.

What say you?
No one has missed the point, Hawkins.
The fact remains:  there is a dynamic equilibrium between minerals concentrated in bacteria (or protozoa, etc.) and floating free, soluble, in the soil. The free, soluble, ions can (1) be taken up by another microbe (2) be leached by rainwater or (3) be taken up by a plant root. Yes, proximity of the source increases the probability of (3). But it's still nowhere close to 100%.
I don't know what the percent is. But it's got to be pretty close to 100% because soil scientists like Elaine Ingham tell us that if you measure the soluble fertilizer content of rainforest soils you will barely get a reading at all. Which is really interesting because it tells us that some of the best plant growth on the planet is achieved entirely without a man-made product which most mainstream agriculturalists think is indispensable for growing plants. That is, commercial fertilizers.
Dave in the rainforest as much as possible is cycled as quickly as possible. It isn't cut down and exported hundreds of miles off site. So you don't need to add commercial (or indeed any) fertilisers, because the nutrients that aren't leached stay on site, and the system has adapted to cycle the nutrients that are susceptible to leaching as rapidly as possible, and most of those are locked up in the canopy.

The reason you barely get a reading for soluble fertilizer content in the rainforests is because if it wasn't sucked up almost as soon as it was produced by the trees it would get leached away. Which is what happens when you get rid of the trees. What little nutrients you put back by burning or composting the cleared forests rapidly leach away. There isn't a store of nutrients that you can rely on as in Missouri or other grasslands.


I agree with most of this.

And I agree that if you remove large numbers of trees like the mega farms do then what you are saying here is generally what will happen.

BUT ...

I'm not proposing to remove large numbers of trees. In fact I've asked a question about what do you think would happen if I just removed one large tree, and I didn't even remove it completely but left the roots and stump in place for coppicing.

What say you?
Hey baby, can I stick it in just a little bit. I'm sure it won't cause any problems. Just a little tiny bit.