Jump to content

Food and plants (split from Why do scientist "think" they know everything??)


Bartholomew Jones
 Share

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Moontanman said:

Have you considered growing plants that add nutrients to the soil? I am rather fond of crimson clover.. 

Cover crops are a good way to enrich the soil.  I usually let as much "competing" vegetation come up with my crop as possible.  It works well in place, for example, of tomato stakes; and the alleged competition is negligible if not nil.  It tends to balance the place out.  For example, theres more roughage for the rabbit before he finds my carrots.

Did you know alfalfa is a kind of clover?

Edited by Bartholomew Jones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Moontanman said:

I keep getting the idea that some sort of "General Trace element" is being discussed but so far no identification of a specific trace element has been named. The idea that trace elements are some sort of catch all or a group is false..  You have both major and minor trace elements no to mention many that only apply to one plant or a group of plants. I also doubt that the nutritional value of food plants is greatly influenced by trace elements, if the plant grows and fruits it has the trace elements it needs... 

One should add that one can get high quality soil rather easily. A lot of things you introduce, e.g. volcanic soil or other fertilizers are rather rich in trace elements. While nitrogen can be fixed by some plants (in conjunction with bacteria, which is the basic idea of crop rotation), phosphorus tends to be the limiting factor in large-scale agriculture. 

The other thing to consider is of course yield. A plant might grow and produce crop, but one might get much less than with proper fertilization. And of course there is the difference between aiming for self-sustenance or large-scale production to feed everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

50% at least, of products purchased are packaged somewhat in plastic, or something not so biodegradable.  The product itself is often refuse to the environment.  The net product of the economy is hurtful, not helpful.  There's plenty of earth stuff for the whole population to flourish.

The only earth people shift around is for so-called development.  If half the "work" being done for this kind of progress were done for food production locally, to restore land to what it was, people would be healthier and happier.

I think you've confused this place with your personal blog.

I've known some little girls who for some reason get focused on one thing (usually horses or unicorns) and that is all they ever think about, talk about, draw, collect, etc. It's an interesting phenomenon. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of trace elements and digesting non-food stuff, many animals, including primates like us, have urges to eat dirt.
This is especially true during pregnancy, and there have been studies done that suggests this is an instinctive way to get access to trace elements when food is scarce, as well as introducing a varied bacterial flora into the digestive system. It also fills you up when you are hungry.

I think Bart's biggest problem is his dissociation of science from nature, and I usually laugh at people who say they prefer 'natural' as opposed to 'tainted by science'.
They don't seem to realise science is simply the observation of how nature works.
What could be more natural ???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, MigL said:

Speaking of trace elements and digesting non-food stuff, many animals, including primates like us, have urges to eat dirt.

I don't think anyone has accused it of tasting like chicken.

Quote

A mud cookie or bonbon tè in Haitian Creole is a food that is eaten in Haiti, particularly in times of Pregnancy. They can be found in slums like Cité Soleil. Dirt is collected from the nation's central plateau, near the town of Hinche, and trucked over to the market (e.g. La Saline market) where women purchase it.[1][2][3] It is processed into cookies in shanty towns such as Fort Dimanche.[3] First, the dirt is strained to remove rocks and clumps.[3] The dirt is mixed with salt and vegetable shortening or fat.[1][4] It is formed into flat discs.[1] Then, it is dried in the sun.[4] The finished product is transported in buckets and is sold in the market or on the streets.[2]

Due to the mineral content, it was traditionally used as a dietary supplement for pregnant women and children.[1][4] For example, its calcium content could be used as an antacid and for nutrition.[4] The production cost is cheap; the dirt to make one hundred cookies was five US dollars in 2008 (about 5 cents apiece) even after increasing $1.50.[2][3] It is also seen as a way to stave off starvation.[1][4] This is especially true in times where there is a rise in global food prices like in 2008.[2][5]

The taste has been described as a smooth consistency that immediately dries the mouth with an unpleasant aftertaste of dirt that lingers for hours.[3]

The clay may also contain toxins and parasites, posing a health risk

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mud_cookie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Henry Ford betrays the human attitude about work in his autobiography when he explains his motive behind the design of the model-T production system.  The automobile wasn't even his objective.  It was a means to accomplish his objective of easier farmwork.  He hated the rigour required on the farm for the production of what in his view was an insufficient return in comparison.  A production system affording a probability for the population to each own a car guaranteed a highway system for the distribution of all the machine parts for all farming communities to assemble tractors.

But the problem is people too often are grumblers because of work.  The farm had become a profit center.  Farms were competing in the sense of "keeping up with the Smiths."  The village where everyone was in it together, directly, was a thing of the past.

The village economy is the highest form of human economy, short of heaven.

56 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Speaking of trace elements and digesting non-food stuff, many animals, including primates like us, have urges to eat dirt.

I remember munching on ants once when I was 4 or 5.  I'm not bragging.  Lol

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Speaking of trace elements and digesting non-food stuff, many animals, including primates like us, have urges to eat dirt.
This is especially true during pregnancy, and there have been studies done that suggests this is an instinctive way to get access to trace elements when food is scarce, as well as introducing a varied bacterial flora into the digestive system. It also fills you up when you are hungry.

I think Bart's biggest problem is his dissociation of science from nature, and I usually laugh at people who say they prefer 'natural' as opposed to 'tainted by science'.
They don't seem to realise science is simply the observation of how nature works.
What could be more natural ???

If that were the case, but it's not.  That's what it's supposed to be.  How is formulating a theory about human evolution; that is, humans evolving from a lower life form, then transforming that theory conveniently into fact, the observation of how nature works?  You're treating speculation as principle.

Edited by Bartholomew Jones
Period to QMark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recognize this thread was split bc Bart couldn’t stay on topic, but now he’s again off topic from the split. 

3 hours ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

The "have to for money" aspect depreciates the value of work.  The value of work is for the works sake.

I never suggested otherwise. You seem to be replying to a caricature of me or some fiction that you’ve invented about my life 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

I recognize this thread was split bc Bart couldn’t stay on topic, but now he’s again off topic from the split. 

I never suggested otherwise. You seem to be replying to a caricature of me or some fiction that you’ve invented about my life 

I'm responding to 1) your statement about how awful things were in the past, comparatively, including work; and 2) the general or a common attitude about work

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CharonY said:

One should add that one can get high quality soil rather easily. A lot of things you introduce, e.g. volcanic soil or other fertilizers are rather rich in trace elements. While nitrogen can be fixed by some plants (in conjunction with bacteria, which is the basic idea of crop rotation), phosphorus tends to be the limiting factor in large-scale agriculture. 

The other thing to consider is of course yield. A plant might grow and produce crop, but one might get much less than with proper fertilization. And of course there is the difference between aiming for self-sustenance or large-scale production to feed everyone.

Yes, hence my lava rock flour, of course i was growing cacti and some required some aragonite as well. Aragonite is useful when breeding and growing out turtles as well..   

3 hours ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

Cover crops are a good way to enrich the soil.  I usually let as much "competing" vegetation come up with my crop as possible.  It works well in place, for example, of tomato stakes; and the alleged competition is negligible if not nil.  It tends to balance the place out.  For example, theres more roughage for the rabbit before he finds my carrots.

Did you know alfalfa is a kind of clover?

No I did not know that, thanks for the tip. Do you have lab assays that pinpoint the trace elements you are lacking in your soil? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

No I did not know that, thanks for the tip. Do you have lab assays that pinpoint the trace elements you are lacking in your soil? 

I don't go about it too scientifically.  My theory, if you will, is the more you diversify, directly, and through composting--for example, different selections of moss, tree hummus and fungi fruit bases (mushrooms), from the woods, the richer your soil.

Science gives me a fresh, temporary, view into it.  Even if I don't quite get it, nature is assymetric; whether science is right or not, and whether I accept or reject the particular principle, nature rewards me.  There's an old story among the ancient Hebrews about the man Jacob before his name was changed to Israel how nature rewarded him similarly with flocks.

Edited by Bartholomew Jones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

I'm responding to 1) your statement about how awful things were in the past, comparatively, including work;

Please quote where you think I said this. I said nothing of the sort. 

32 minutes ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

the general or a common attitude about work

I’ve already clarified for you how I feel about work. If you continue to misrepresent me, then I can no longer assume you just have reading comprehension problems and will instead be forced to conclude that you are intentionally lying. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see where you’d be confused. My comment related to the benefits of science and technology and how much better off we are as a result. I used an example to show how we’ve shifted the way we spend our time and how much opportunity that’s opened up to us as a culture.

You, however, read that as me saying hard work is awful and so was the past. That wasn’t my intent.

Now you’re clear on my meaning. Please stop misrepresenting me. 

Edited by iNow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, iNow said:

I can see where you’d be confused. My comment related to the benefits of science and technology and how much better off we are as a result. I used an example to show how we’ve shifted the way we spend our time and how much opportunity that’s opened up to us as a culture.

You, however, read that as me saying hard work is awful and so was the past. That wasn’t my intent.

Now you’re clear on my meaning. Please stop misrepresenting me. 

I only recognize swansont, zapatos and John cuthber so far.  I wasn't really responding to you.  I was responding to your statements.

I recognize the names.  No associations yet, besides those three and maybe two others.

Edited by Bartholomew Jones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

I don't go about it too scientifically.  My theory, if you will, is the more you diversify, directly, and through composting--for example, different selections of moss, tree hummus and fungi fruit bases (mushrooms), from the woods, the richer your soil.

Science gives me a fresh, temporary, view into it.  Even if I don't quite get it, nature is assymetric; whether science is right or not, and whether I accept or reject the particular principle, nature rewards me.  There's an old story among the ancient Hebrews about the man Jacob before his name was changed to Israel how nature rewarded him similarly with flocks.

I have to ask "If you are not going about it scientifically "how do you know if any trace elements are missing and why are you asking questions on a science site"? You are simply using your own opinion and you are welcome to that but that is meaningless in a discussion like this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

I have to ask "If you are not going about it scientifically "how do you know if any trace elements are missing and why are you asking questions on a science site"? You are simply using your own opinion and you are welcome to that but that is meaningless in a discussion like this. 

The general solution to trace element deficiencies is to buy something.  My whole program is to resist adding products except minerals taken directly from the ground.  My theory, a strong one, is that diversity of materials compensates for every deficiency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a "strong" current "theory" that you feel your opinion is just as good as other peoples facts, and that while your idea is directionally correct, many of the details you propose wouldn't stand up to even remedial scrutiny, they'd fail the test of experiment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

I have a "strong" current "theory" that you feel your opinion is just as good as other peoples facts, and that while your idea is directionally correct, many of the details you propose wouldn't stand up to even remedial scrutiny, they'd fail the test of experiment. 

Well, we'll see next summer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

Well, we'll see next summer.

Not really. If you throw enough shit on the wall some of it is bound to stick. You don't then get to claim your "Theory of Poop Adhesiveness via Magnetism to Wood" is "strong".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

Like I said, I'm not here to prove anything to you.  I'm here to prove a truth.

I have to wonder …
Why are you posting on a science site if you are unwilling to consider science facts, or the scientific method ?
Why not post your unscientific ( and/or unsupported ) ideas on a 'naturalist' site ?

IOW, are you wasting our time, and simply trolling us ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.