Habitat Contamination - Warning: Rambling Ahead!

> A lot to think about;
>
> heres one small part.
>
> Pests and weeds are part of a natural process. My understanding
is that
> weeds are Natures way of converting soils unsuited for other
plants TO soils
> suited for other plants. Unfortunately on the human time scale it
takes too
> long for us to see the benefits.
>
> So, by enriching the soils through human intervention,
mineralizing them
> appropriately to the needs of the specific plants that ARE
desired, it
> defacto makes it un palatable for weeds to grow. It's just simply
> not an attractive medium for their growth. This allows "super"
production
> of the desired plants and very little if any weeds to worry about.

Really? I've never heard that before, nor have I seen it happen. I
usually see weeds competing with healthy plants for a share of the
resources. I never see weeds growing where other plants can't
sustain themselves, preparing the way as you say. Rather, they seem
to like the fertile gardens, forests, and lawns.

As to your point about weeds being a part of the natural process,
that doesn't equate to them being beneficial. Natural isn't always
the most efficient. Weeds have found a niche in which they compete
with other biology for resources in order to live. Weeds are better
at surviving but don't offer humans the resources were looking for.

>
> Pests are natures way of destroying and breaking down unhealthy
plants.
> Along with bacteria, they allow natural selection to take place.
If the
> plant is healthy, then pests don't attack it. (Think of sharks in
the ocean
> or any other preditor... they don't go after the strong, they seek
out the
> weak, same prinicpal).

Well, yes and no. Your point about sharks is true enough, and it
would illustrate the pest situation accurately if your description
about pests was entirely accurate. But how would you explain the
numerous instances of pests that attack healthy plants. Pests that
destroy healthy wheat crops, pests that kill whole pine forests,
whole fir forests, whole breadfuit plantations, whole orange groves,
etc. You may argue that the instances of plantations I cited are de
facto, not healthy because they don't incorporate biodiversity, but
that criticism won't hold true for natural forests, which by
definition are biodiverse.

Yes, there are biological dependencies that exist between organisms,
ie, predator and prey. Then again there is pestulence, which doesn't
serve the same purpose. They compete against the existing biology in
order to replace it. Some pests are even parasites. Their mission is
to live off of the existing biology and they can't even replace it.

>
> So then the simple solution is to properly feed plants what they
need, so
> they are strong. This however does not mean the wholesale
fertilizer route.

As I cited above, there are many instances where healthy plants are
attacked by pests. So I don't think it is as simple as keeping the
plants healthy.

>
> A simple technique for zeroing in on plants health is by checking
the
> solids in the sap (somewhat akin to a blood test :-) . A
refractor or brix
> reader helps in this. Make adjustment, check results, make
adjustment check
> again, till you get the high brix you want. Very scientific no
mumbo jumbo,
> whichdoctors waving bones, divining rods, etc. :-) Commonly used
by wine
> growers to get best high dollar product.
>
> When a plant reaches a brix of around 16-20, pests rarely if ever
attack.
> Most commercially grown plants have brix in 4-12 range at best.

Well, that's interesting news. I'll need to read more about it. But
so far into the discussion, I'm still looking for a reason as to why
introduce pests at all. If your agronomists are monitoring the plant
life so thoroughly to get high brix counts in order to ward off
pests, then why introduce them into the eco-cylinder at all?

>
> Some of the other beannies of high brix is that the fruit or
vegetable has a
> higher "sugar" content as well, and much more nutrients. This
translates
> into better tasting food for most peoples palate. Also the water
is held
> better in the plant cell rather than between cells. This seems to
extend the
> shelf life of a harvested product from days to weeks, since it it
appears
> that its the free
> water that somehow promotes rotting.

Well, you mention a number of benefits to high brix counts. If it's
that simple, and cost effective, then I'm for it too!

>
> So if the production is strong, and the soil balance not conducive
to the
> propagation needs of weeds, then it doesnt matter if spores or
aphids or
> whatever piggy back onto the independent environment... since they
won't
> find the proper medium to grow well and multiply.
>
> problem abated.

But pests compete with existing biosphere, rather than seek out sub-
optimal conditions.

>
> regarding if humans would be able to use the same technique,
(staying strong
> and therefor not allowing an opening for disease to enter) needs
to be
> studied a bit more.

How do you stay strong in the face of AIDS, TB, smallpox, measles,
flu, etc?

>
> It would be reasonable to assume that indigenous people living in
the new
> world and hawaii were indeed healthy; investigations of niche
populations by
> Dr.Price alluded to same from dental examinations. Yet it appears
that
> disease ridden Europeans invading these isolated lands almost
wiped out
> native populations through syphylis, and others nasties.

I'm not sure it's safe to assume your first point, but I don't think
there is any dispute as to the facts about your second point. It was
indeed tragic. The first point sounds very similar to a lot of New
Age mythology. I'm not saying that's what you're referring to, nor
do I know of Dr. Price's research on teeth, it's just that I've run
into too much mumbo-jumbo lately which gives too much respect and
creedance to shamanistic rituals and customs of North American
Indian tribes and Chinese medicine. Pretty soon, some group is going
to want to bring back leeches, bleedings, and chants as a form of
medicine. Sorry about the rant :)
>
> A strong constitution is great but perhaps not enough for some of
the more
> pathogenic bugs.

Very true. So why bring the bugs in at all?