| 29-08-2020 16:24 |
HarveyH55 ★★★★★
(5197) |
Xadoman wrote:
Don't go large scale.
Why not. I could start selling this kind of composting toilets.
$6,000? I think most people would go for the more modern, indoor water closet design and septic system. Running across the yard, late night, to use an outhouse, isn't that appealing. |
| 29-08-2020 17:01 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
HarveyH55 wrote:
Xadoman wrote:
Don't go large scale.
Why not. I could start selling this kind of composting toilets.
$6,000? I think most people would go for the more modern, indoor water closet design and septic system. Running across the yard, late night, to use an outhouse, isn't that appealing.
For some people, if the design were improved, they might like it. And it could be a part of the house. Candles could provide odor control. Why it's away from the residence.
And don't be surprised if in the future the amount of mass removed from a farm is quantified and then the same mass returned to that farm. It's about sustainability. |
| 29-08-2020 21:34 |
HarveyH55★★★★★
(5197) |
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Xadoman wrote:
Don't go large scale.
Why not. I could start selling this kind of composting toilets.
$6,000? I think most people would go for the more modern, indoor water closet design and septic system. Running across the yard, late night, to use an outhouse, isn't that appealing.
For some people, if the design were improved, they might like it. And it could be a part of the house. Candles could provide odor control. Why it's away from the residence.
And don't be surprised if in the future the amount of mass removed from a farm is quantified and then the same mass returned to that farm. It's about sustainability.
That was the ancient way. The soil is just a substrate for the roots to hold onto, control moisture and drainage. Chemical fertilizers are much more predictable and controllable. Farmers are able to more precisely feed the crops, for maximum production, with little guess work. Hauling in organic matter doesn't guaranty there quantity or variety a particular crop might require. Takes a lot of bulk organic matter too, and time to incorporate. Chemical farming is more productive an profitable, by a huge margin. Organic, and Non-GMO, is mostly one of those 'trendy' democrat things, pay a lot more, ang getting less. |
| 30-08-2020 02:45 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
HarveyH55 wrote:
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Xadoman wrote:
Don't go large scale.
Why not. I could start selling this kind of composting toilets.
$6,000? I think most people would go for the more modern, indoor water closet design and septic system. Running across the yard, late night, to use an outhouse, isn't that appealing.
For some people, if the design were improved, they might like it. And it could be a part of the house. Candles could provide odor control. Why it's away from the residence.
And don't be surprised if in the future the amount of mass removed from a farm is quantified and then the same mass returned to that farm. It's about sustainability.
That was the ancient way. The soil is just a substrate for the roots to hold onto, control moisture and drainage. Chemical fertilizers are much more predictable and controllable. Farmers are able to more precisely feed the crops, for maximum production, with little guess work. Hauling in organic matter doesn't guaranty there quantity or variety a particular crop might require. Takes a lot of bulk organic matter too, and time to incorporate. Chemical farming is more productive an profitable, by a huge margin. Organic, and Non-GMO, is mostly one of those 'trendy' democrat things, pay a lot more, ang getting less.
Your missing the point. Please sober up, okay? When the top soil becomes depleted of nutrients then it's difficult to grow anything. Biosolids is just another form of composting. It helps to maintain healthy farm land.
With your methodology, everything would be grown hydroponically. And I think that'd be a lot more expensive because then the roots need to be in mineral (rock/stone) and fed a lot of fertilizer.
And if people like growing their own food, what Xadoman is doing might catch their interest. I mean if you're going to live there for a while and like gardening, what he's doing is a step in the right direction.
@Xadoman, there are some countries that might benefit from your approach. And it has to do with conservation and helping to keep land arable. Thanks for (com)posting. |
| 30-08-2020 04:23 |
HarveyH55★★★★★
(5197) |
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Xadoman wrote:
Don't go large scale.
Why not. I could start selling this kind of composting toilets.
$6,000? I think most people would go for the more modern, indoor water closet design and septic system. Running across the yard, late night, to use an outhouse, isn't that appealing.
For some people, if the design were improved, they might like it. And it could be a part of the house. Candles could provide odor control. Why it's away from the residence.
And don't be surprised if in the future the amount of mass removed from a farm is quantified and then the same mass returned to that farm. It's about sustainability.
That was the ancient way. The soil is just a substrate for the roots to hold onto, control moisture and drainage. Chemical fertilizers are much more predictable and controllable. Farmers are able to more precisely feed the crops, for maximum production, with little guess work. Hauling in organic matter doesn't guaranty there quantity or variety a particular crop might require. Takes a lot of bulk organic matter too, and time to incorporate. Chemical farming is more productive an profitable, by a huge margin. Organic, and Non-GMO, is mostly one of those 'trendy' democrat things, pay a lot more, ang getting less.
Your missing the point. Please sober up, okay? When the top soil becomes depleted of nutrients then it's difficult to grow anything. Biosolids is just another form of composting. It helps to maintain healthy farm land.
With your methodology, everything would be grown hydroponically. And I think that'd be a lot more expensive because then the roots need to be in mineral (rock/stone) and fed a lot of fertilizer.
And if people like growing their own food, what Xadoman is doing might catch their interest. I mean if you're going to live there for a while and like gardening, what he's doing is a step in the right direction.
@Xadoman, there are some countries that might benefit from your approach. And it has to do with conservation and helping to keep land arable. Thanks for (com)posting.
It's not exactly like hydroponics. The farm soil retains moisture and nutrients (fertilizer). Fertilizer comes in several forms as well. The dry, doesn't dissolve instantaneously, and used, or disappears immediately. It's out there for months, can be reapplied if needed. Liquids are used more as a quick fix, if the plants are showing signs of a deficiency. |
|
| 30-08-2020 05:57 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
HarveyH55 wrote:
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Xadoman wrote:
Don't go large scale.
Why not. I could start selling this kind of composting toilets.
$6,000? I think most people would go for the more modern, indoor water closet design and septic system. Running across the yard, late night, to use an outhouse, isn't that appealing.
For some people, if the design were improved, they might like it. And it could be a part of the house. Candles could provide odor control. Why it's away from the residence.
And don't be surprised if in the future the amount of mass removed from a farm is quantified and then the same mass returned to that farm. It's about sustainability.
That was the ancient way. The soil is just a substrate for the roots to hold onto, control moisture and drainage. Chemical fertilizers are much more predictable and controllable. Farmers are able to more precisely feed the crops, for maximum production, with little guess work. Hauling in organic matter doesn't guaranty there quantity or variety a particular crop might require. Takes a lot of bulk organic matter too, and time to incorporate. Chemical farming is more productive an profitable, by a huge margin. Organic, and Non-GMO, is mostly one of those 'trendy' democrat things, pay a lot more, ang getting less.
Your missing the point. Please sober up, okay? When the top soil becomes depleted of nutrients then it's difficult to grow anything. Biosolids is just another form of composting. It helps to maintain healthy farm land.
With your methodology, everything would be grown hydroponically. And I think that'd be a lot more expensive because then the roots need to be in mineral (rock/stone) and fed a lot of fertilizer.
And if people like growing their own food, what Xadoman is doing might catch their interest. I mean if you're going to live there for a while and like gardening, what he's doing is a step in the right direction.
@Xadoman, there are some countries that might benefit from your approach. And it has to do with conservation and helping to keep land arable. Thanks for (com)posting.
It's not exactly like hydroponics. The farm soil retains moisture and nutrients (fertilizer). Fertilizer comes in several forms as well. The dry, doesn't dissolve instantaneously, and used, or disappears immediately. It's out there for months, can be reapplied if needed. Liquids are used more as a quick fix, if the plants are showing signs of a deficiency.
If the mass of the crops removed from a farm isn't replaced, the depth of the soil will decrease. Just a very basic fact. After all, what leaves a farm can't be composted, right?
Kind of why I like what Xadoman is doing. It's a step in the right direction and he's willing to take it. It's efforts like his that help us to understand what is sustainable. Okay, for someone like me.
At the same time, he should contact magazines that might be interested in his story. There are groups who might find his work interesting. At the same time, they should contact him and get to know more about him and why he's doing what he is. His story could help them in their work. Of course, they'd need to make his work known as well. He does deserve credit for what he's done and is doing.
Edited on 30-08-2020 06:17 |
| 30-08-2020 10:14 |
Xadoman★★★★☆
(1035) |
Thanks James, you are the first guy who shows appreciation. Usually I get bashed into the mud by everyone. Probably they think I am crazy.
When it comes to topsoil it seems to me that many people take it for granted. For them it is just a dirt but actually it is a very valuable asset that is constantly under pressure to get the most out of it. Also keep in mind that one handfull of soil consist more living organism than there are people in the world. Modern farming is very intensive. One day they harvest and already on the second day they start tilling the field. No time to breath between . The consequnces of such practices are soil depletion of vital elements and also a direct loss of soil mass. If you have a simple digged hole in the ground type outhouse then you berry vital soil elements deep into the ground where they can not help anymore to produce food. That is a net loss of topsoil elements. Also burying people deep into the ground is a net loss of topsoil. Remember, from dirt to dirt. We should spread the ashes of dead people onto the fields so that there would be no net loss of topsoil. |
| 30-08-2020 16:24 |
HarveyH55★★★★★
(5197) |
The only things plants take out of the soil, is the nutrients and moisture. Water and fertilizer replace both of those. Topsoil only needs to retain a sufficient amount of moisture and nutrients. Plants don't eat dirt, they absorb the nutrients. There are a lot of trace elements in organic soil, which are missing in chemical fertilizers. Obviously the focus, is only the nutrients the crops need to grow and mature. This can be either a good thing, or a bad thing, depending on which elements are present in the soil, and concentrations. After all, our diet is based on the variety of foods we eat, to get different nutrients. Different plants are know to be better sources of some, than others. If those nutrients aren't even present in the soil, they aren't going to be in the plants. Even trace elements play a role, but it would be overly complicated to make chemical fertilizers that had every chemical compound known to man. Composting doesn't guaranty those trace elements are present either.
What good would cremating, the spreading ashes do? Cremating produces a lot of deadly, man-made CO2. Burn bodies, burn up the planet. Maybe a practice run, for the final destination of your soul... If you want to get any benefit from dead bodies, you wouldn't want to burn them first, just plow them in, like manure or anything else. Of course, people are too thrill to hear about human waste used as fertilizer for food crops, doubt they are going to be happy about human bodies either. Although, I suspect it happens from time to time, lot of people reported missing every year, just vanish without a trace... |
| 30-08-2020 16:56 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
Xadoman wrote:
Thanks James, you are the first guy who shows appreciation. Usually I get bashed into the mud by everyone. Probably they think I am crazy.
When it comes to topsoil it seems to me that many people take it for granted. For them it is just a dirt but actually it is a very valuable asset that is constantly under pressure to get the most out of it. Also keep in mind that one handfull of soil consist more living organism than there are people in the world. Modern farming is very intensive. One day they harvest and already on the second day they start tilling the field. No time to breath between . The consequnces of such practices are soil depletion of vital elements and also a direct loss of soil mass. If you have a simple digged hole in the ground type outhouse then you berry vital soil elements deep into the ground where they can not help anymore to produce food. That is a net loss of topsoil elements. Also burying people deep into the ground is a net loss of topsoil. Remember, from dirt to dirt. We should spread the ashes of dead people onto the fields so that there would be no net loss of topsoil.
You're welcome X-man. Someone once posted in here that Iowa has lost over 1/2 of it's top soil in the last 100 years. And in that same time, corn production has gone from about 55 bushels per acre to over 195.
I think in the next decade or 2 that sustainability issues will take over everything else. I'm usually the most hated person in here for preaching environmentalism. They really hate that.
Basically every aquifer west of the Mississippi River is depleted. That represents about 40% of US agricultural production from about 14% of the US population. So contrary to what people may believe, we need sources of fresh water if we want to protect our food supply. And we also need to replace the organic matter leaving farms as well.
With me, I can see where in the future people will accept things need to be different but doubt they will be happy about it.
@All, this is about Iowa's topsoil loss. And for some in Iowa, it's already an issue.
Iowa farmers' greatest asset is their soil. It's the amazing productivity of Iowa's soil that makes our state the agricultural powerhouse in feeding the world. The fertility and yield potential of Iowa topsoil has earned it the title as Iowa's "black gold." Yet, Iowa Republicans don't want to discuss the undeniable truth that Iowa's black gold is washing away at ten times the rate of replenishment.
https://iowastartingline.com/2017/08/14/iowas-black-gold-washing-away/
If anyone takes the time to do a search, much is being written about topsoil erosion in Iowa and that topsoil erosion is about 10x the rate of replenishment. That seems to be an agreed upon number by a variety of sources.
Edited on 30-08-2020 17:03 |
| 30-08-2020 20:27 |
Into the Night ★★★★★
(21705) |
James___ wrote:
Xadoman wrote:
Thanks James, you are the first guy who shows appreciation. Usually I get bashed into the mud by everyone. Probably they think I am crazy.
When it comes to topsoil it seems to me that many people take it for granted. For them it is just a dirt but actually it is a very valuable asset that is constantly under pressure to get the most out of it. Also keep in mind that one handfull of soil consist more living organism than there are people in the world. Modern farming is very intensive. One day they harvest and already on the second day they start tilling the field. No time to breath between . The consequnces of such practices are soil depletion of vital elements and also a direct loss of soil mass. If you have a simple digged hole in the ground type outhouse then you berry vital soil elements deep into the ground where they can not help anymore to produce food. That is a net loss of topsoil elements. Also burying people deep into the ground is a net loss of topsoil. Remember, from dirt to dirt. We should spread the ashes of dead people onto the fields so that there would be no net loss of topsoil.
You're welcome X-man. Someone once posted in here that Iowa has lost over 1/2 of it's top soil in the last 100 years. And in that same time, corn production has gone from about 55 bushels per acre to over 195.
I think in the next decade or 2 that sustainability issues will take over everything else. I'm usually the most hated person in here for preaching environmentalism. They really hate that.
Basically every aquifer west of the Mississippi River is depleted. That represents about 40% of US agricultural production from about 14% of the US population. So contrary to what people may believe, we need sources of fresh water if we want to protect our food supply. And we also need to replace the organic matter leaving farms as well.
With me, I can see where in the future people will accept things need to be different but doubt they will be happy about it.
@All, this is about Iowa's topsoil loss. And for some in Iowa, it's already an issue.
Iowa farmers' greatest asset is their soil. It's the amazing productivity of Iowa's soil that makes our state the agricultural powerhouse in feeding the world. The fertility and yield potential of Iowa topsoil has earned it the title as Iowa's "black gold." Yet, Iowa Republicans don't want to discuss the undeniable truth that Iowa's black gold is washing away at ten times the rate of replenishment.
https://iowastartingline.com/2017/08/14/iowas-black-gold-washing-away/
If anyone takes the time to do a search, much is being written about topsoil erosion in Iowa and that topsoil erosion is about 10x the rate of replenishment. That seems to be an agreed upon number by a variety of sources.
Which is it, dude? Half the topsoil eroded away, and corn production goes up by FOUR TIMES????
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 30-08-2020 22:02 |
HarveyH55★★★★★
(5197) |
Here in Florida, fresh water falls from the sky all the time. Just had a bunch fall about a half hour ago.
I don't get your fancy math, only made it halfway through pre-calculus in college, almost 40 years ago... If half the crucial topsoil washed away, how come product increased almost 4 times? If the fresh water is depleted, does that mean it was wash away by saltwater? There isn't even an ocean nearby, not to mention saltwater is very good for crops. Half the topsoil is a lot, for an entire state, where did it all go? Did it wash out into that nearby ocean? Maybe that's why the Norwegian Sea level is rising, at such an alarming rate? |
| 30-08-2020 23:07 |
Xadoman★★★★☆
(1035) |
There is a Seneca cliff of crop yield if the topsoil diminishes to a certain value. Until then the use of fertilizers help the crop to grow but at certain thickness the game is over. Then even heavy use of fertilizers would not help.
Harvey, the topsoil indeed washes to rivers ,lakes and oceans. Some of it is being buried under the ground in the landfills. The topsoil in Iowa was very thick back in the day but now it is only half the thickness it use to be 150 years ago. Also, if you eat a plant from depleted field( roided up with fertilizers) it does not give the same nutritional value as a plant from non-depleted field. It is all pretty basic knowledge which our ancestors knew back in their time. They had a lot of problems with depleted fields. We may think that everything is good because the yield is high but all of it is possible at the expence of diminishing topsoil. Same with depleted aquifers. |
| 30-08-2020 23:15 |
Xadoman★★★★☆
(1035) |
Today I finished the second layer of the reinforcement. Now it is ready for the pour. Here are a couple of pictures of the slab reinforcement:
 |
| 31-08-2020 03:21 |
GasGuzzler★★★★★
(2938) |
Xadoman wrote:
The topsoil in Iowa was very thick back in the day but now it is only half the thickness it use to be 150 years ago.
Much of this has to do with how they planted way back when.
I remember my grandfather looking out over his field and nearly coming to tears.
"We didn't know any better, we ran our tractors and planters straight up and down the hills every year."
Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan |
| 31-08-2020 07:41 |
IBdaMann ★★★★★
(14477) |
GasGuzzler wrote:
Xadoman wrote:
The topsoil in Iowa was very thick back in the day but now it is only half the thickness it use to be 150 years ago.
Much of this has to do with how they planted way back when.
I remember my grandfather looking out over his field and nearly coming to tears.
"We didn't know any better, we ran our tractors and planters straight up and down the hills every year."
I learned that lesson the hard way. There I was, using the squeegee on my windshield, downward vertically, downward vertically ... always wondering if I was supposed to have those vertical streaks.
Finally I clued in on "horizontal motion." If only I had known sooner.
I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit
A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles
Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris
Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit
If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles
Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles
Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn
You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.
The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank
:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude
IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist |
|
| 31-08-2020 20:06 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
GasGuzzler wrote:
Xadoman wrote:
The topsoil in Iowa was very thick back in the day but now it is only half the thickness it use to be 150 years ago.
Much of this has to do with how they planted way back when.
I remember my grandfather looking out over his field and nearly coming to tears.
"We didn't know any better, we ran our tractors and planters straight up and down the hills every year."
That's not the issue. It's when the grasses that grew there were plowed under for crops. Corn has a 15.5% water content. Do fertilizers account for the rest of the biomass leaving the farm? Does any "fill" transported to the farm replace the lost biomass?
And then how much of the exposed topsoil is washed away? In a sense this is necessary because of the pesticides. Chances are that those pesticides could reach toxic levels if berms were used to prevent soil erosion.
And yet you and Harvey, et al, pride yourself on being stupid. I guess if someone told you that you were hatched, you would believe them. And that's because you wouldn't have to know anything. It's a simple answer. And that works for people like you. |
| 31-08-2020 20:58 |
GasGuzzler★★★★★
(2938) |
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Xadoman wrote:
The topsoil in Iowa was very thick back in the day but now it is only half the thickness it use to be 150 years ago.
Much of this has to do with how they planted way back when.
I remember my grandfather looking out over his field and nearly coming to tears.
"We didn't know any better, we ran our tractors and planters straight up and down the hills every year."
That's not the issue. It's when the grasses that grew there were plowed under for crops. Corn has a 15.5% water content. Do fertilizers account for the rest of the biomass leaving the farm? Does any "fill" transported to the farm replace the lost biomass?
And then how much of the exposed topsoil is washed away? In a sense this is necessary because of the pesticides. Chances are that those pesticides could reach toxic levels if berms were used to prevent soil erosion.
And yet you and Harvey, et al, pride yourself on being stupid. I guess if someone told you that you were hatched, you would believe them. And that's because you wouldn't have to know anything. It's a simple answer. And that works for people like you.
Corn plants are in the grass family dumbass. They grow to twelve feet high, so unless you're eating the stalks, not much biomass leaving the farm dumbass.
No till farming is also becoming common, and will be the norm in a couple decades dumbass. Cover crops planted after the harvest to prevent erosion are also becoming common, dumbass.
Other things like drain tile and terrace structures are being done, dumbass. Our farmers love the land and are not raping it, dumbass.
There is no shortage of yield and won't be any time soon, dumbass.
Did I mention you are a dumbass?
Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan |
| 31-08-2020 21:29 |
gfm7175 ★★★★★
(3314) |
GasGuzzler wrote:
Corn plants are in the grass family dumbass. They grow to twelve feet high, so unless you're eating the stalks, not much biomass leaving the farm dumbass.
No till farming is also becoming common, and will be the norm in a couple decades dumbass. Cover crops planted after the harvest to prevent erosion are also becoming common, dumbass.
Other things like drain tile and terrace structures are being done, dumbass. Our farmers love the land and are not raping it, dumbass.
There is no shortage of yield and won't be any time soon, dumbass.
Did I mention you are a dumbass?
I wish that you would say what you really mean... I feel that you are bottling up your true thoughts about our good friend... |
| 31-08-2020 22:07 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
GasGuzzler wrote:
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Xadoman wrote:
The topsoil in Iowa was very thick back in the day but now it is only half the thickness it use to be 150 years ago.
Much of this has to do with how they planted way back when.
I remember my grandfather looking out over his field and nearly coming to tears.
"We didn't know any better, we ran our tractors and planters straight up and down the hills every year."
That's not the issue. It's when the grasses that grew there were plowed under for crops. Corn has a 15.5% water content. Do fertilizers account for the rest of the biomass leaving the farm? Does any "fill" transported to the farm replace the lost biomass?
And then how much of the exposed topsoil is washed away? In a sense this is necessary because of the pesticides. Chances are that those pesticides could reach toxic levels if berms were used to prevent soil erosion.
And yet you and Harvey, et al, pride yourself on being stupid. I guess if someone told you that you were hatched, you would believe them. And that's because you wouldn't have to know anything. It's a simple answer. And that works for people like you.
Corn plants are in the grass family dumbass. They grow to twelve feet high, so unless you're eating the stalks, not much biomass leaving the farm dumbass.
No till farming is also becoming common, and will be the norm in a couple decades dumbass. Cover crops planted after the harvest to prevent erosion are also becoming common, dumbass.
Other things like drain tile and terrace structures are being done, dumbass. Our farmers love the land and are not raping it, dumbass.
There is no shortage of yield and won't be any time soon, dumbass.
Did I mention you are a dumbass?
and won't be any time soon
Conservation isn't preservation dumb ass
p.s., word salad, buzzword fallacy, etc.
Edited on 31-08-2020 22:08 |
| 01-09-2020 03:34 |
HarveyH55★★★★★
(5197) |
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Xadoman wrote:
The topsoil in Iowa was very thick back in the day but now it is only half the thickness it use to be 150 years ago.
Much of this has to do with how they planted way back when.
I remember my grandfather looking out over his field and nearly coming to tears.
"We didn't know any better, we ran our tractors and planters straight up and down the hills every year."
That's not the issue. It's when the grasses that grew there were plowed under for crops. Corn has a 15.5% water content. Do fertilizers account for the rest of the biomass leaving the farm? Does any "fill" transported to the farm replace the lost biomass?
And then how much of the exposed topsoil is washed away? In a sense this is necessary because of the pesticides. Chances are that those pesticides could reach toxic levels if berms were used to prevent soil erosion.
And yet you and Harvey, et al, pride yourself on being stupid. I guess if someone told you that you were hatched, you would believe them. And that's because you wouldn't have to know anything. It's a simple answer. And that works for people like you.
15.5%, which part... How often do the entire plant leave the farm? Carrots and potatoes, sure, but most crops, the roots stay in the ground. You do remember CO2, from your global warming cult thing right? The carbon, that makes up most of the bulk, doesn't come out of the soil. It comes from the atmosphere. Plants are saving the planet, from warmzombie, Jesus-juice guzzling morons. Besides, I thought corn, was 95% ethanol... What's it say on you jug?
Edited on 01-09-2020 03:38 |
| 01-09-2020 20:07 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
HarveyH55 wrote:
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Xadoman wrote:
The topsoil in Iowa was very thick back in the day but now it is only half the thickness it use to be 150 years ago.
Much of this has to do with how they planted way back when.
I remember my grandfather looking out over his field and nearly coming to tears.
"We didn't know any better, we ran our tractors and planters straight up and down the hills every year."
That's not the issue. It's when the grasses that grew there were plowed under for crops. Corn has a 15.5% water content. Do fertilizers account for the rest of the biomass leaving the farm? Does any "fill" transported to the farm replace the lost biomass?
And then how much of the exposed topsoil is washed away? In a sense this is necessary because of the pesticides. Chances are that those pesticides could reach toxic levels if berms were used to prevent soil erosion.
And yet you and Harvey, et al, pride yourself on being stupid. I guess if someone told you that you were hatched, you would believe them. And that's because you wouldn't have to know anything. It's a simple answer. And that works for people like you.
15.5%, which part... How often do the entire plant leave the farm? Carrots and potatoes, sure, but most crops, the roots stay in the ground. You do remember CO2, from your global warming cult thing right? The carbon, that makes up most of the bulk, doesn't come out of the soil. It comes from the atmosphere. Plants are saving the planet, from warmzombie, Jesus-juice guzzling morons. Besides, I thought corn, was 95% ethanol... What's it say on you jug?
When people like you and GasGuzzler become aggressive, it's because you know you're wrong. This is known because you're talking about an ear of corn and it's husk. My grandmother grew corn. My brother tilled the ground so we could plant seed.
I know from experience what part of the corn stalk is removed from the field. And if we talk about an ear of corn and nothing else, 84.5% of it's mass leaves the field.
Yet neither you nor GasGuzzler will say when it comes to soil erosion, how much is attributed to run off and how by the produce leaving the field. It takes about 26 lbs. of corn to make 1 gallon of ethanol. 1 gallon of ethanol weighs 7 lbs.
It seems that you did a search Harvey and saw that ethanol is 95% alcohol by volume. So you see, corn is about 27% ethanol after processing. The starch in corn is what becomes ethanol.
I think I'm going to learn to start enjoying being right all of the time. |
| 01-09-2020 21:55 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21705) |
GasGuzzler wrote:
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Xadoman wrote:
The topsoil in Iowa was very thick back in the day but now it is only half the thickness it use to be 150 years ago.
Much of this has to do with how they planted way back when.
I remember my grandfather looking out over his field and nearly coming to tears.
"We didn't know any better, we ran our tractors and planters straight up and down the hills every year."
That's not the issue. It's when the grasses that grew there were plowed under for crops. Corn has a 15.5% water content. Do fertilizers account for the rest of the biomass leaving the farm? Does any "fill" transported to the farm replace the lost biomass?
And then how much of the exposed topsoil is washed away? In a sense this is necessary because of the pesticides. Chances are that those pesticides could reach toxic levels if berms were used to prevent soil erosion.
And yet you and Harvey, et al, pride yourself on being stupid. I guess if someone told you that you were hatched, you would believe them. And that's because you wouldn't have to know anything. It's a simple answer. And that works for people like you.
Corn plants are in the grass family dumbass. They grow to twelve feet high, so unless you're eating the stalks, not much biomass leaving the farm dumbass.
No till farming is also becoming common, and will be the norm in a couple decades dumbass. Cover crops planted after the harvest to prevent erosion are also becoming common, dumbass.
Other things like drain tile and terrace structures are being done, dumbass. Our farmers love the land and are not raping it, dumbass.
There is no shortage of yield and won't be any time soon, dumbass.
Did I mention you are a dumbass?
Exactly right. Some farmers just harvested feed corn for their chickens. Just left the stalks lying on the field. He plows them under to act as fertilizer for the next crop.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 01-09-2020 21:58 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21705) |
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Xadoman wrote:
The topsoil in Iowa was very thick back in the day but now it is only half the thickness it use to be 150 years ago.
Much of this has to do with how they planted way back when.
I remember my grandfather looking out over his field and nearly coming to tears.
"We didn't know any better, we ran our tractors and planters straight up and down the hills every year."
That's not the issue. It's when the grasses that grew there were plowed under for crops. Corn has a 15.5% water content. Do fertilizers account for the rest of the biomass leaving the farm? Does any "fill" transported to the farm replace the lost biomass?
And then how much of the exposed topsoil is washed away? In a sense this is necessary because of the pesticides. Chances are that those pesticides could reach toxic levels if berms were used to prevent soil erosion.
And yet you and Harvey, et al, pride yourself on being stupid. I guess if someone told you that you were hatched, you would believe them. And that's because you wouldn't have to know anything. It's a simple answer. And that works for people like you.
15.5%, which part... How often do the entire plant leave the farm? Carrots and potatoes, sure, but most crops, the roots stay in the ground. You do remember CO2, from your global warming cult thing right? The carbon, that makes up most of the bulk, doesn't come out of the soil. It comes from the atmosphere. Plants are saving the planet, from warmzombie, Jesus-juice guzzling morons. Besides, I thought corn, was 95% ethanol... What's it say on you jug?
When people like you and GasGuzzler become aggressive, it's because you know you're wrong. This is known because you're talking about an ear of corn and it's husk. My grandmother grew corn. My brother tilled the ground so we could plant seed.
I know from experience what part of the corn stalk is removed from the field. And if we talk about an ear of corn and nothing else, 84.5% of it's mass leaves the field.
Yet neither you nor GasGuzzler will say when it comes to soil erosion, how much is attributed to run off and how by the produce leaving the field. It takes about 26 lbs. of corn to make 1 gallon of ethanol. 1 gallon of ethanol weighs 7 lbs.
It seems that you did a search Harvey and saw that ethanol is 95% alcohol by volume. So you see, corn is about 27% ethanol after processing. The starch in corn is what becomes ethanol.
I think I'm going to learn to start enjoying being right all of the time.
Assumption of victory fallacy.
Corn does not contain any ethanol. It contains carbohydrates. You have to convert these into ethanol. Feed corn and sweet corn sold on the market never becomes ethanol.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 02-09-2020 02:35 |
GasGuzzler★★★★★
(2938) |
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
[quote]Xadoman wrote:
The topsoil in Iowa was very thick back in the day but now it is only half the thickness it use to be 150 years ago.
Much of this has to do with how they planted way back when.
I remember my grandfather looking out over his field and nearly coming to tears.
"We didn't know any better, we ran our tractors and planters straight up and down the hills every year."
Corn has a 15.5% water content. Do fertilizers account for the rest of the biomass leaving the farm? Does any "fill" transported to the farm replace the lost biomass?
And then how much of the exposed topsoil is washed away? In a sense this is necessary because of the pesticides. Chances are that those pesticides could reach toxic levels if berms were used to prevent soil erosion.
And yet you and Harvey, et al, pride yourself on being stupid. I guess if someone told you that you were hatched, you would believe them. And that's because you wouldn't have to know anything. It's a simple answer. And that works for people like you.
15.5%, which part... How often do the entire plant leave the farm? Carrots and potatoes, sure, but most crops, the roots stay in the ground. You do remember CO2, from your global warming cult thing right? The carbon, that makes up most of the bulk, doesn't come out of the soil. It comes from the atmosphere. Plants are saving the planet, from warmzombie, Jesus-juice guzzling morons. Besides, I thought corn, was 95% ethanol... What's it say on you jug?
James___ wrote:When people like you and GasGuzzler become aggressive, it's because you know you're wrong.
No. I get aggressive when you piss in my Cheerios. You are a blathering idiot running your mouth about shit you haven't a clue about, and now you made it personal by running down the farmers. I have several friends who produce grain.
When you mention farming or your disability I think of my grandpa. He was a young farmer in the 1930s when his hand got caught in a threshing machine. He pulled back a bloody stump. Today he would have been eligible for that gov disability check and a green light to sit on his ass. Instead he farmed successfully, one handed, for 3 more decades. He was never angry and never complained. One night in Houston he was at a Rockets game with his daughter. He was having a mild stroke, but didn't tell anyone till the game was over because he didn't want to bother anyone with his sniffles.
So yes James, you will be met with aggression when you accuse farmers of raping and ruining the land just to make a few bucks.
James___ wrote:This is known because you're talking about an ear of corn and it's husk.
You were NOT talking about an ear of corn. You were talking about erosion due to plowing grasses under. Here, see what you actually said.
James___ wrote:That's not the issue. It's when the grasses that grew there were plowed under for crops.
James___ wrote:My grandmother grew corn. My brother tilled the ground so we could plant seed.
Did you sit and watch?
James___ wrote:I know from experience what part of the corn stalk is removed from the field.
Apparently not. Most farmers use a combine that shreds and scatters the stalks. Some guys will round bale for feed, but most like it on the feild to prevent erosion and return organic matter to the soil.
James___ wrote:And if we talk about an ear of corn and nothing else, 84.5% of it's mass leaves the field.
We were not talking about an ear of corn. We were talking about top soil erosion.
James___ wrote:Yet neither you nor GasGuzzler will say when it comes to soil erosion, how much is attributed to run off and how by the produce leaving the field.
How does an ear of corn leaving the feild lead to erosion? Dumbass fallacy.
James___ wrote:It takes about 26 lbs. of corn to make 1 gallon of ethanol. 1 gallon of ethanol weighs 7 lbs.
It seems that you did a search Harvey and saw that ethanol is 95% alcohol by volume. So you see, corn is about 27% ethanol after processing. The starch in corn is what becomes ethanol.
It would appear you also did a search.
James___ wrote:I think I'm going to learn to start enjoying being right all of the time.
First you'll need to be right about something. Dumbass.
Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
Edited on 02-09-2020 02:48 |
| 02-09-2020 02:44 |
IBdaMann★★★★★
(14477) |
GasGuzzler wrote:Corn plants are in the grass family dumbass. They grow to twelve feet high, so unless you're eating the stalks, not much biomass leaving the farm dumbass.
No till farming is also becoming common, and will be the norm in a couple decades dumbass. Cover crops planted after the harvest to prevent erosion are also becoming common, dumbass.
Other things like drain tile and terrace structures are being done, dumbass. Our farmers love the land and are not raping it, dumbass.
There is no shortage of yield and won't be any time soon, dumbass.
Did I mention you are a dumbass?
Remind me to check with you first before I post on a topic.
.
I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit
A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles
Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris
Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit
If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles
Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles
Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn
You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.
The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank
:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude
IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist |
| 02-09-2020 03:16 |
HarveyH55★★★★★
(5197) |
Ears only make up a fraction, of the entire corn plant. Use be little use for the stalk, but there is a market as livestock feed, biofuels, plastic for my 3d printer. Depends on the farmer, some want/need to sqeeze every penny they can out of a crop. Some do just fine off the ears.
Plants only extract nutrients from soil, they don't actually eat dirt. The nutrients can be replaced with chemical fertilizers. Plowing under organic matter, feeds to, but mostly it help retain moisture, and keep the soil loose for root growth. Plants aren't smart. you only need to feed their basic needs, and they grow just fine. When you consistently provide everything a plant needs, they consistently produce the maximum yield. Plowing under organic matter, as the sole source of nutrients, isn't as consistent, since you have to rely on nature doing it's job under ground, in a timely manner. You have to consider the ecosystem under the surface, being happy and health as well, to breakdown the organics, into nutrients the plants can readily absorb as needed. You need bacteria, worms and a few other things going on. What rots the organic matter you plowed under, can also rot the roots of the crops you plant. Some bugs and insects, nematodes aren't all that picky about living or dead organic matter. |
| 02-09-2020 03:19 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
GasGuzzler wrote:
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
[quote]Xadoman wrote:
The topsoil in Iowa was very thick back in the day but now it is only half the thickness it use to be 150 years ago.
Much of this has to do with how they planted way back when.
I remember my grandfather looking out over his field and nearly coming to tears.
"We didn't know any better, we ran our tractors and planters straight up and down the hills every year."
Corn has a 15.5% water content. Do fertilizers account for the rest of the biomass leaving the farm? Does any "fill" transported to the farm replace the lost biomass?
And then how much of the exposed topsoil is washed away? In a sense this is necessary because of the pesticides. Chances are that those pesticides could reach toxic levels if berms were used to prevent soil erosion.
And yet you and Harvey, et al, pride yourself on being stupid. I guess if someone told you that you were hatched, you would believe them. And that's because you wouldn't have to know anything. It's a simple answer. And that works for people like you.
15.5%, which part... How often do the entire plant leave the farm? Carrots and potatoes, sure, but most crops, the roots stay in the ground. You do remember CO2, from your global warming cult thing right? The carbon, that makes up most of the bulk, doesn't come out of the soil. It comes from the atmosphere. Plants are saving the planet, from warmzombie, Jesus-juice guzzling morons. Besides, I thought corn, was 95% ethanol... What's it say on you jug?
James___ wrote:When people like you and GasGuzzler become aggressive, it's because you know you're wrong.
No. I get aggressive when you piss in my Cheerios. You are a blathering idiot running your mouth about shit you haven't a clue about, and now you made it personal by running down the farmers. I have several friends who produce grain.
When you mention farming or your disability I think of my grandpa. He was a young farmer in the 1930s when his hand got caught in a threshing machine. He pulled back a bloody stump. Today he would have been eligible for that gov disability check and a green light to sit on his ass. Instead he farmed successfully, one handed, for 3 more decades. He was never angry and never complained. One night in Houston he was at a Rockets game with his daughter. He was having a mild stroke, but didn't tell anyone till the game was over because he didn't want to bother anyone with his sniffles.
So yes James, you will be met with aggression when you accuse farmers of raping and ruining the land just to make a few bucks.
James___ wrote:This is known because you're talking about an ear of corn and it's husk.
You were NOT talking about an ear of corn. You were talking about erosion due to plowing grasses under. Here, see what you actually said.
James___ wrote:That's not the issue. It's when the grasses that grew there were plowed under for crops.
James___ wrote:My grandmother grew corn. My brother tilled the ground so we could plant seed.
Did you sit and watch?
James___ wrote:I know from experience what part of the corn stalk is removed from the field.
Apparently not. Most farmers use a combine that shreds and scatters the stalks. Some guys will round bale for feed, but most like it on the feild to prevent erosion and return organic matter to the soil.
James___ wrote:And if we talk about an ear of corn and nothing else, 84.5% of it's mass leaves the field.
We were not talking about an ear of corn. We were talking about top soil erosion.
James___ wrote:Yet neither you nor GasGuzzler will say when it comes to soil erosion, how much is attributed to run off and how by the produce leaving the field.
How does an ear of corn leaving the feild lead to erosion? Dumbass fallacy.
James___ wrote:It takes about 26 lbs. of corn to make 1 gallon of ethanol. 1 gallon of ethanol weighs 7 lbs.
It seems that you did a search Harvey and saw that ethanol is 95% alcohol by volume. So you see, corn is about 27% ethanol after processing. The starch in corn is what becomes ethanol.
It would appear you also did a search.
James___ wrote:I think I'm going to learn to start enjoying being right all of the time.
First you'll need to be right about something. Dumbass.
It's sad that you don't get it. If an ear of corn, the 84.5% that's biomass and not water, where is the mass coming from? Is it all fertilizer? Doubtful. That means the nutrients in the soil are being depleted.
And regardless of how tall a stalk of corn grows, it's the root system of grasses that prevent soil erosion. This goes back to the Dust Bowl. Grasses were plowed under and their root system couldn't keep moisture in the ground.
And in Iowa this translates to when it rains, corn doesn't have the same root system because it's young because it's a seasonal crop. When grasses are there this year, next year and the year after that, their root system might become like a mat. They can become intertwined.
Yep, once again I'll need to feel good about being right. I think I could get used to this. It's a good feeling.
And as an added bonus GasGuzzler, preservation might not be that difficult to do. The last time I checked, America is just over 244 years old. Will it be here in another 244 years?
And when I say preserve our agricultural production, how could you ever construe that as attacking farmers and ranchers? We're dependent on them for most of our food supply. I am aware of this. Why I say preservation. |
| 02-09-2020 03:47 |
HarveyH55★★★★★
(5197) |
I'd imagine if you studied a little botany, you might understand better where a plant's mass actually comes from. Pretty sure I mentioned it earlier, it's from the CO2. All the carbon, in the carbon molecules, that make up the plant, and all living things, comes from CO2. It doesn't come out of the soil, so the topsoil bulk isn't depleted that much.
Maybe a little subtle, by my earlier references to 'corn', was as the shortened for 'corn whiskey/liqueur, which is generally the cheapest kind to produce. |
| 02-09-2020 03:57 |
GasGuzzler★★★★★
(2938) |
James___ wrote: It's sad that you don't get it. If an ear of corn, the 84.5% that's biomass and not water, where is the mass coming from? Is it all fertilizer? Doubtful. That means the nutrients in the soil are being depleted.
Why are you trying a create a crisis where there isn't one?
James___ wrote: This goes back to the Dust Bowl. Grasses were plowed under and their root system couldn't keep moisture in the ground.
There was no moisture to hold, dumbass.
James___ wrote: And in Iowa this translates to when it rains, corn doesn't have the same root system because it's young because it's a seasonal crop.
Did you know corn roots go down 5-6 feet? They have one hell of a root system, dumbass.
James___ wrote:
When grasses are there this year, next year and the year after that, their root system might become like a mat. They can become intertwined .
Take a walk through an Iowa corn field sometime, dumbass.
James___ wrote: Yep, once again I'll need to feel good about being right. I think I could get used to this. It's a good feeling.
Sweet dreams, dumbass.
James___ wrote:And as an added bonus GasGuzzler, preservation might not be that difficult to do.
What do you suggest? We're all ears in Iowa.
James___ wrote:The last time I checked, America is just over 244 years old. Will it be here in another 244 years?
Not if dumbasses are running it.
James___ wrote: And when I say preserve our agricultural production, how could you ever construe that as attacking farmers and ranchers?
You said it yourself. We are depleting our topsoil and there will be food shortages coming. You are a dumbass.
James___ wrote: We're dependent on them for most of our food supply.
I am well aware.
James___ wrote: Why I say preservation.
By all means, let the farmers in Iowa know how they can do it better. Be specific, dumbass.
Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan |
| 02-09-2020 04:04 |
GasGuzzler★★★★★
(2938) |
IBdaMann wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:Corn plants are in the grass family dumbass. They grow to twelve feet high, so unless you're eating the stalks, not much biomass leaving the farm dumbass.
No till farming is also becoming common, and will be the norm in a couple decades dumbass. Cover crops planted after the harvest to prevent erosion are also becoming common, dumbass.
Other things like drain tile and terrace structures are being done, dumbass. Our farmers love the land and are not raping it, dumbass.
There is no shortage of yield and won't be any time soon, dumbass.
Did I mention you are a dumbass?
Remind me to check with you first before I post on a topic.
.
No need. You have a proven track record of utmost knowledge and the ability to apply said knowledge to the world we live in. What's more is that if someone such as myself just doesn't understand, you can explain it in terms of brilliant sarcasm that anyone except James can understand. Your input is highly appreciated.
Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan |
|
| 02-09-2020 04:05 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
GasGuzzler wrote:
James___ wrote: It's sad that you don't get it. If an ear of corn, the 84.5% that's biomass and not water, where is the mass coming from? Is it all fertilizer? Doubtful. That means the nutrients in the soil are being depleted.
Why are you trying a create a crisis where there isn't one?
James___ wrote: This goes back to the Dust Bowl. Grasses were plowed under and their root system couldn't keep moisture in the ground.
There was no moisture to hold, dumbass.
James___ wrote: And in Iowa this translates to when it rains, corn doesn't have the same root system because it's young because it's a seasonal crop.
Did you know corn roots go down 5-6 feet? They have one hell of a root system, dumbass.
James___ wrote:
When grasses are there this year, next year and the year after that, their root system might become like a mat. They can become intertwined .
Take a walk through an Iowa corn field sometime, dumbass.
James___ wrote: Yep, once again I'll need to feel good about being right. I think I could get used to this. It's a good feeling.
Sweet dreams, dumbass.
James___ wrote:And as an added bonus GasGuzzler, preservation might not be that difficult to do.
What do you suggest? We're all ears in Iowa.
James___ wrote:The last time I checked, America is just over 244 years old. Will it be here in another 244 years?
Not if dumbasses are running it.
James___ wrote: And when I say preserve our agricultural production, how could you ever construe that as attacking farmers and ranchers?
You said it yourself. We are depleting our topsoil and there will be food shortages coming. You are a dumbass.
James___ wrote: We're dependent on them for most of our food supply.
I am well aware.
James___ wrote: Why I say preservation.
By all means, let the farmers in Iowa know how they can do it better. Be specific, dumbass.
Isn't it funny how Harvey discounted the nutrients being pulled from the soil? Kind of what both of you are ignoring. After all, what is soil or loam? And why does that matter? Neither of you are touching the subject that is at the heart of the matter. |
| 02-09-2020 04:06 |
GasGuzzler★★★★★
(2938) |
gfm7175 wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Corn plants are in the grass family dumbass. They grow to twelve feet high, so unless you're eating the stalks, not much biomass leaving the farm dumbass.
No till farming is also becoming common, and will be the norm in a couple decades dumbass. Cover crops planted after the harvest to prevent erosion are also becoming common, dumbass.
Other things like drain tile and terrace structures are being done, dumbass. Our farmers love the land and are not raping it, dumbass.
There is no shortage of yield and won't be any time soon, dumbass.
Did I mention you are a dumbass?
I wish that you would say what you really mean... I feel that you are bottling up your true thoughts about our good friend...
Hope ur happy now. No more bottling of the feelings.
Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan |
| 02-09-2020 04:08 |
GasGuzzler★★★★★
(2938) |
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
James___ wrote: It's sad that you don't get it. If an ear of corn, the 84.5% that's biomass and not water, where is the mass coming from? Is it all fertilizer? Doubtful. That means the nutrients in the soil are being depleted.
Why are you trying a create a crisis where there isn't one?
James___ wrote: This goes back to the Dust Bowl. Grasses were plowed under and their root system couldn't keep moisture in the ground.
There was no moisture to hold, dumbass.
James___ wrote: And in Iowa this translates to when it rains, corn doesn't have the same root system because it's young because it's a seasonal crop.
Did you know corn roots go down 5-6 feet? They have one hell of a root system, dumbass.
James___ wrote:
When grasses are there this year, next year and the year after that, their root system might become like a mat. They can become intertwined .
Take a walk through an Iowa corn field sometime, dumbass.
James___ wrote: Yep, once again I'll need to feel good about being right. I think I could get used to this. It's a good feeling.
Sweet dreams, dumbass.
James___ wrote:And as an added bonus GasGuzzler, preservation might not be that difficult to do.
What do you suggest? We're all ears in Iowa.
James___ wrote:The last time I checked, America is just over 244 years old. Will it be here in another 244 years?
Not if dumbasses are running it.
James___ wrote: And when I say preserve our agricultural production, how could you ever construe that as attacking farmers and ranchers?
You said it yourself. We are depleting our topsoil and there will be food shortages coming. You are a dumbass.
James___ wrote: We're dependent on them for most of our food supply.
I am well aware.
James___ wrote: Why I say preservation.
By all means, let the farmers in Iowa know how they can do it better. Be specific, dumbass.
Isn't it funny how Harvey discounted the nutrients being pulled from the soil? Kind of what both of you are ignoring. After all, what is soil or loam? And why does that matter? Neither of you are touching the subject that is at the heart of the matter.
You are ignoring the nutrients being put back!! Dumbass. An if the soil comes up a bit short, you know what we do? We feed the cows some corn and then collect their manure and put it back on the field. It's good shit!
Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
Edited on 02-09-2020 04:09 |
| 02-09-2020 04:19 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
GasGuzzler wrote:
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
James___ wrote: It's sad that you don't get it. If an ear of corn, the 84.5% that's biomass and not water, where is the mass coming from? Is it all fertilizer? Doubtful. That means the nutrients in the soil are being depleted.
Why are you trying a create a crisis where there isn't one?
James___ wrote: This goes back to the Dust Bowl. Grasses were plowed under and their root system couldn't keep moisture in the ground.
There was no moisture to hold, dumbass.
James___ wrote: And in Iowa this translates to when it rains, corn doesn't have the same root system because it's young because it's a seasonal crop.
Did you know corn roots go down 5-6 feet? They have one hell of a root system, dumbass.
James___ wrote:
When grasses are there this year, next year and the year after that, their root system might become like a mat. They can become intertwined .
Take a walk through an Iowa corn field sometime, dumbass.
James___ wrote: Yep, once again I'll need to feel good about being right. I think I could get used to this. It's a good feeling.
Sweet dreams, dumbass.
James___ wrote:And as an added bonus GasGuzzler, preservation might not be that difficult to do.
What do you suggest? We're all ears in Iowa.
James___ wrote:The last time I checked, America is just over 244 years old. Will it be here in another 244 years?
Not if dumbasses are running it.
James___ wrote: And when I say preserve our agricultural production, how could you ever construe that as attacking farmers and ranchers?
You said it yourself. We are depleting our topsoil and there will be food shortages coming. You are a dumbass.
James___ wrote: We're dependent on them for most of our food supply.
I am well aware.
James___ wrote: Why I say preservation.
By all means, let the farmers in Iowa know how they can do it better. Be specific, dumbass.
Isn't it funny how Harvey discounted the nutrients being pulled from the soil? Kind of what both of you are ignoring. After all, what is soil or loam? And why does that matter? Neither of you are touching the subject that is at the heart of the matter.
You are ignoring the nutrients being put back!! Dumbass. An if the soil comes up a bit short, you know what we do? We feed the cows some corn and then collect their manure and put it back on the field. It's good shit!
And now you're like stripper dancing for 5717mfg. I'm sure he's enjoying your performance. Has he slipped a dollar into your underpants to show you how he values your performance?
A link to some of the nutrients essential to the growth of corn. And they come from the soil. If not for something like this, why not just grow corn hydroponically? So please, keep dancing for 5717mfg. I'm sure he's getting off on this.
https://www.360yieldcenter.com/2015/05/soil-nutrient-series-part-1-nutrient-movement-and-root-uptake/ |
| 02-09-2020 04:39 |
GasGuzzler★★★★★
(2938) |
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
James___ wrote: It's sad that you don't get it. If an ear of corn, the 84.5% that's biomass and not water, where is the mass coming from? Is it all fertilizer? Doubtful. That means the nutrients in the soil are being depleted.
Why are you trying a create a crisis where there isn't one?
James___ wrote: This goes back to the Dust Bowl. Grasses were plowed under and their root system couldn't keep moisture in the ground.
There was no moisture to hold, dumbass.
James___ wrote: And in Iowa this translates to when it rains, corn doesn't have the same root system because it's young because it's a seasonal crop.
Did you know corn roots go down 5-6 feet? They have one hell of a root system, dumbass.
James___ wrote:
When grasses are there this year, next year and the year after that, their root system might become like a mat. They can become intertwined .
Take a walk through an Iowa corn field sometime, dumbass.
James___ wrote: Yep, once again I'll need to feel good about being right. I think I could get used to this. It's a good feeling.
Sweet dreams, dumbass.
James___ wrote:And as an added bonus GasGuzzler, preservation might not be that difficult to do.
What do you suggest? We're all ears in Iowa.
James___ wrote:The last time I checked, America is just over 244 years old. Will it be here in another 244 years?
Not if dumbasses are running it.
James___ wrote: And when I say preserve our agricultural production, how could you ever construe that as attacking farmers and ranchers?
You said it yourself. We are depleting our topsoil and there will be food shortages coming. You are a dumbass.
James___ wrote: We're dependent on them for most of our food supply.
I am well aware.
James___ wrote: Why I say preservation.
By all means, let the farmers in Iowa know how they can do it better. Be specific, dumbass.
Isn't it funny how Harvey discounted the nutrients being pulled from the soil? Kind of what both of you are ignoring. After all, what is soil or loam? And why does that matter? Neither of you are touching the subject that is at the heart of the matter.
You are ignoring the nutrients being put back!! Dumbass. An if the soil comes up a bit short, you know what we do? We feed the cows some corn and then collect their manure and put it back on the field. It's good shit!
And now you're like stripper dancing for 5717mfg. I'm sure he's enjoying your performance. Has he slipped a dollar into your underpants to show you how he values your performance?
A link to some of the nutrients essential to the growth of corn. And they come from the soil. If not for something like this, why not just grow corn hydroponically? So please, keep dancing for 5717mfg. I'm sure he's getting off on this.
https://www.360yieldcenter.com/2015/05/soil-nutrient-series-part-1-nutrient-movement-and-root-uptake/
A fine set of points. Even a link! Well argued, dumbass.
Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan |
| 02-09-2020 05:23 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
GasGuzzler wrote:
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
James___ wrote: It's sad that you don't get it. If an ear of corn, the 84.5% that's biomass and not water, where is the mass coming from? Is it all fertilizer? Doubtful. That means the nutrients in the soil are being depleted.
Why are you trying a create a crisis where there isn't one?
James___ wrote: This goes back to the Dust Bowl. Grasses were plowed under and their root system couldn't keep moisture in the ground.
There was no moisture to hold, dumbass.
James___ wrote: And in Iowa this translates to when it rains, corn doesn't have the same root system because it's young because it's a seasonal crop.
Did you know corn roots go down 5-6 feet? They have one hell of a root system, dumbass.
James___ wrote:
When grasses are there this year, next year and the year after that, their root system might become like a mat. They can become intertwined .
Take a walk through an Iowa corn field sometime, dumbass.
James___ wrote: Yep, once again I'll need to feel good about being right. I think I could get used to this. It's a good feeling.
Sweet dreams, dumbass.
James___ wrote:And as an added bonus GasGuzzler, preservation might not be that difficult to do.
What do you suggest? We're all ears in Iowa.
James___ wrote:The last time I checked, America is just over 244 years old. Will it be here in another 244 years?
Not if dumbasses are running it.
James___ wrote: And when I say preserve our agricultural production, how could you ever construe that as attacking farmers and ranchers?
You said it yourself. We are depleting our topsoil and there will be food shortages coming. You are a dumbass.
James___ wrote: We're dependent on them for most of our food supply.
I am well aware.
James___ wrote: Why I say preservation.
By all means, let the farmers in Iowa know how they can do it better. Be specific, dumbass.
Isn't it funny how Harvey discounted the nutrients being pulled from the soil? Kind of what both of you are ignoring. After all, what is soil or loam? And why does that matter? Neither of you are touching the subject that is at the heart of the matter.
You are ignoring the nutrients being put back!! Dumbass. An if the soil comes up a bit short, you know what we do? We feed the cows some corn and then collect their manure and put it back on the field. It's good shit!
And now you're like stripper dancing for 5717mfg. I'm sure he's enjoying your performance. Has he slipped a dollar into your underpants to show you how he values your performance?
A link to some of the nutrients essential to the growth of corn. And they come from the soil. If not for something like this, why not just grow corn hydroponically? So please, keep dancing for 5717mfg. I'm sure he's getting off on this.
https://www.360yieldcenter.com/2015/05/soil-nutrient-series-part-1-nutrient-movement-and-root-uptake/
A fine set of points. Even a link! Well argued, dumbass.
Yep, just pole dancing for 5717mfg. Start watching at the 3:00 mark;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=11&v=beWjk_Q6yZ4&feature=emb_logo
Edited on 02-09-2020 05:24 |
| 02-09-2020 10:47 |
HarveyH55★★★★★
(5197) |
How much corn can you possibly grow in Norway, anyway?
How often do you have to add dirt to potted plants? Pretty much never. Same way with a corn field. At best you might remove all the above ground part of the plant, but you plow the roots, which are nearly equal in size to the above ground, by weight. I'm sure there are quite a few differences between American corn fields, and Norwegian ice fields, but topsoil is useless, when it's frozen. This is why fighting climate change makes no sense, if it were even true. I like a warmer climate, and plants do too. Would Norwegians be happier, if they could grow something more than ice cubes? |
| 08-10-2020 06:08 |
HarveyH55★★★★★
(5197) |
No updates? No Grand Opening celebration? Maybe construction got put on hold, do to a climate change...
I've been wonder about something though. The manure box takes care of one problem, well... Number Two problem, actually. But what happens to all the other 'gray water'? Certainly, there must be sinks, a shower, urinals, dishwasher, clothes washing machine, hot tub. Would the soap and detergents in the gray water, be more likely to encourage algae blooms, than raw sewage? |
| 08-10-2020 07:17 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
HarveyH55 wrote:
How much corn can you possibly grow in Norway, anyway?
How often do you have to add dirt to potted plants? Pretty much never. Same way with a corn field. At best you might remove all the above ground part of the plant, but you plow the roots, which are nearly equal in size to the above ground, by weight. I'm sure there are quite a few differences between American corn fields, and Norwegian ice fields, but topsoil is useless, when it's frozen. This is why fighting climate change makes no sense, if it were even true. I like a warmer climate, and plants do too. Would Norwegians be happier, if they could grow something more than ice cubes?
This is sad Harvey. Everyone knows that the Gulf Stream warms Norway just as it does Europe. The image moves North American cities to the other side of the Atlantic Ocean and their cities to North America.
All you need to consider is how far north cities like Dublin, London, Amsterdam, Paris and Berlin are. Then look at how many American cities have a latitude similar to the Straight of Gibraltar, that's where you go from the Atlantic Ocean to the Mediterranean Sea.
Then again, the White House seems to have it's only little non-pandemic going on. Or is this just more fake news?
The coronavirus outbreak has infected "34 White House staffers and other contacts" in recent days, according to an internal government memo, an indication that the disease has spread among more people than previously known in the seat of American government.
Dated Wednesday and obtained by ABC News, the memo was distributed among senior leadership at FEMA, a branch of the Department of Homeland Security and the agency responsible for managing the continuing national response to the public health disaster.
https://www.yahoo.com/gma/34-people-connected-white-house-235300262.html
p.s., Miami would be in the desert if it was in Africa or the Middle East.
Harvey, I do plan on enjoying my projects.
Attached image:
Edited on 08-10-2020 07:23 |
| 08-10-2020 07:48 |
HarveyH55★★★★★
(5197) |
Would Norwegians build $6,000 outhouses?
Covid is just a cold. I'm sure more than 34 people catch cold every year in or government offices... |