|
Post by gardendmpls on Dec 30, 2020 19:30:03 GMT -5
Often I come across new research that is interesting or exciting and may be of use today or in the future. Thought we could use a thread for this. Of course, only real research, not Weekly World News (remember that- things like giant killer plant bites off man's head, with photo of man with t-shirt obviously pulled up over his head, lying in pool of fake blood).This first article is a synopsis of research done which shows plants in arid climates can grow more leaf hairs when they are deficient in phosphorous and other minerals. The hairs trap moisture which in turn traps mineral dust from the air. They then produce an acid which dissolves the minerals, making them more easily absorbed. They basically make their own fertilizer when needed. Now to find all the different ways to apply this, most likely through cross breeding, but maybe finding how to trigger this response in crop plants. unitedwithisrael.org/watch-israelis-discover-way-to-cut-out-dangerous-chemical-fertilizers/
|
|
|
Post by James on Dec 31, 2020 11:48:26 GMT -5
I really don't know what to say. I respond only to say "I Read It!"
|
|
|
Post by wargarden2017 on Jan 1, 2021 14:46:21 GMT -5
sadly most of my research material I work with is over 50 years old.
|
|
|
Post by martywny on Jan 1, 2021 15:42:31 GMT -5
sadly most of my research material I work with is over 50 years old. Oh, good, from back before the main ingredient was poison.
|
|
|
Post by wargarden2017 on Jan 1, 2021 17:56:35 GMT -5
martywny, you be surprised how much poison( that is banned now) was used in gardens from 1900-1970
|
|
|
Post by martywny on Jan 1, 2021 18:55:16 GMT -5
you be surprised how much poison( that is banned now) was used in gardens from 1900-1970 Well DDT is the first one that comes to mind but even worse is that US Agribiz uses many chemicals that have been banned in countries where payoffs and political corruption are not the norm because they are overruled by intelligence.
|
|
|
Post by tom 🕊 on Jan 1, 2021 19:42:32 GMT -5
Well DDT is the first one that comes to mind I remember Paris Green and Arsenic of Lead.
|
|
|
Post by gardendmpls on Jan 3, 2021 10:05:28 GMT -5
Nicotine, which is derived from plants (organic?) but highly toxic, was one. And remember all those stories where someone is done in and they find the culprit with arsenic in the garden shed. They also used cyanide (think I just read that in one of your postings about the English War Gardens).
|
|
|
Post by claude on Jan 4, 2021 6:32:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by gardendmpls on Jan 4, 2021 7:51:58 GMT -5
use of desert agave to reclaim and restore arid desert soils An idea, but the 10 year time for growth might be a problem for those starting out. The orientation of the article seemed to be more about viable crop production than soil restoration, which is OK- no one will do the work if they can't earn enough to make it worthwhile. They would need to start a new field every year to get production for the plant lifespan plus the extra from the more valuable products from the final harvest. They can only harvest two leaves per plant, so a first glance at the data might be misleading, with the amount produced per year for the entire plant listed first (with the actual amount harvested underneath). They show potential income as gross, then mention further down that net is half that. Also, as production increases for something like inulin, would the demand increase or the prices fall? Sounds like something with potential, but if I was an investor I would do a thorough investigation before putting money into it.
|
|
|
Post by SpringRain🕊️ on Jan 4, 2021 14:36:55 GMT -5
if I was an investor I would do a thorough investigation before putting money into it. This isn't an criticism, but an observation. I think the approach of what someone might be able to get out of an investment in the environment is, unfortunately, a detriment to the higher goal of soil reclamation (I'm having visions of Dust Bowl dirt storms as I type this) as well as the residual effects to the communities in question. I understand the value of ROI, but I wonder if it's more appropriate to consider that not in terms of dollars, but of the environment, and specifically the communities affected. I'm not ignoring that change doesn't come quickly. I think that some goals are more worthy than others, and if the research reflects that ROI in soils is a worthy goal in the long run, the criteria for creation and maintenance might be viewed differently than for a product that produces value unrelated to soil reclamation. Just my $.01 worth.
|
|
|
Post by gardendmpls on Jan 4, 2021 19:49:23 GMT -5
what someone might be able to get out of an investment in the environment I was thinking in terms of the farmer. If they are investing the time, money and labor and not getting enough back to make it worthwhile, they won't do it. They won't knowingly starve their families and risk losing everything. There has to be more than just good for the environment- they have to be able to make a living, too. In the dust bowl, people heard that there was a good living to be made in farming the prairies. They came during the rainy part of the cycle, not realizing that during the weather cycle in that area, many years were drought years. The prairie vegetation was needed to hold the soil in those years and the long straight rows they plowed assisted the wind in carrying away the soil. Everyone lured by promises of great crops went broke, as did the ranchers who were managing their land well, but sold off parts of their land during the boom days when it had a high value and then did not have enough area to make sustainable ranching viable. There have been many other farming ideas that sounded good but did not work out (chinchilla and nutria ranching come to mind), and the farmers were those who were hurt. That is why research should be done to see if the plans are viable. ........................................................................................................................... By the way, a great book on the people who went through the dust bowl is The Worst Hard Time, by Timothy Egan. He did some good research for the book, interviewing people who were there, digging up information on the newspaper owner who pushed how great everything was while everything was falling apart, talking to parents who lost children to lung ailments caused by the dust and how they tried to protect their children, how an official timed a speech to congressmen so his main line was spoken just as a dust storm from the dust bowl blew into Washington. That got major legislation passed to help people and protect the land.
|
|