Habitat Contamination - Warning: Rambling Ahead!

> > heres one small part.
> 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 certainly believe your truthful in saying you've never observed that
situation. Most folks don't. Not their job to notice. Never the less thats
the way it is. How can it be otherwise? To paraphrase Dr. Northern ;" ...if
weeds and insects attacked at will and everywhere, there would be nothing
left after the eons of their destruction."

Of course this does not include climatic or cyclical pestulance, which may
very well be designed to redesign better versions of long lived species.
Mother Natures masterplan.

>I usually see weeds competing with healthy plants they seem
> to like the fertile gardens, forests, and lawns.

Seeing can be deceiving. Without a thorough analysis of the soil and its
makeup, it would be very hard to determine that the environment is indeed as
fertile as we may think, for our selected species. Also we must determine
what is a "bad" plant as opposed to a good plant. The conditions of the soil
will determine which is best suited and that will be the once to grow.
Again, there may be some over lap in the mediocre living conditions, since
it rarely is black and white.

Dandilions make a great salad green, hemp also grows in mediocre conditions
than other plants. A certain cactus plant does well in an environment. Its
up to us to determine how to properly use the plant that is natural to the
conditions, or change the conditions.

> 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.

haha, how funny that sounds. Perhaps bettersaid that Nature is not alway the
most
respectful of our desires over its own plan. Heck, then we'ld have ready
made satellite worlds all ready for human habitation with no adjustments
needed. It looks like we will have to use our brain a bit to figure out how
to expand beyond our natural parameters.
:-)

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.

Again, thats just a matter of us finding the values they have and not
dismisssing out of hand that they are useless. Petroleum in natural state
has been around for eons, and probably was not considered useful until
recent history with added technilogy.

> > Pests are natures way of destroying and breaking down unhealthy
> plants.

> But how would you explain the
> numerous instances of pests that attack healthy plants.

Pest are natures way of destroying unhealthy species... that is what it is.
:-)
From time to time a large segment of seemingly healthy species seem to be
attacked for no reason...or better said WE don't see the reason out of hand.

Simple; for the most part, they don't attack. If they are, then defacto and
emperically they are not healthy and strong. Just because it may not be
apparent to the eye that they are sick, does not mean otherwise.

But this gets us nowhere. Lets get scientific.

If you were to check Brix level in the apparent "healthy " plant, you would
find a more in depth reason to the failure. A good example would be over
"fertilization" of some plants, like tomatoes. They grow extremely tall and
then suddenly fall over. No tomatoes were produced either. The over
stimulation wacked out the chemical balance, just like steroids would an
athelete chemical balance.

>Pests that
> destroy healthy pine forests, 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,

You said it :-) they are defacto not healthy. Nothing more complicated.

Many plants and trees exude a chemical, almost like a suicide potent if the
plant/tree's "mind" believes that survival of its species (not necessarily
itself) is in danger. This causes a thinning to allow younger versions to
grow where they may have been totally shut out.

> that criticism won't hold true for natural forests, which by
> definition are biodiverse.

Actually you have to back up a bit and see if there isn't a larger reason
than the single tree or stand of trees. Changes in the soil, for example
from acid rain, can affect the delicate balances. The biggest trees all
depend on a millimeter thick zone around the roots. A MILLIMETER,,, its the
chemical balance within that millimeter that counts, not the surrounding
soil so much.

Dr. Shigo has done much study of this millimeter area...

http://www.chesco.com/%7Etreeman/SHIGO/RHIZO.html

facinating is'nt it! Who would have thunk!

>
> 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.

Long term or short term? How will new and better species develop if the
established ones stay in control? darwins selection theory may come into
play. The best attributes of the older species survive and new attributes
are fused in. Or perhaps the new species is given room to expand. Are humans
being given that opportunity?

> As I cited above, there are many instances where healthy plants are
> attacked by pests.

There are two thoughts on that: one, a shake-up, as in the pestulance or
fire etc. to shake up the gene development, or two plants arent getting what
they need to be healthy (or the ecosystem they are part of is not getting
the proper resources)

>So I don't think it is as simple as keeping the
> plants healthy.

Actually as far as the part we can do, yes. It is as easy as providing
within our artificial means the environment that gives us what we want from
plants. Obviously if we are going to "design" our own ecology, we have to
work with the rules since we can notwait for Mother Nature, Gaia or what
ever to do it in the planetary time frame of ebbs and flows. Even then, we
must be prepared for the monkey wrench that may be unknown in the genes that
may create a pre planned die-off regardless of WHAT we do.

> > When a plant reaches a brix of around 16-20, pests rarely if ever
> attack.
> > Most commercially grown plants have brix in 4-10 range at best.
>
> Well, that's interesting news. I'll need to read more about it.

About Brix and refractometers:

The light passing through the plant sap is refracted (bent) in relation to
the amount of dissolved solids in the liquid. These solids reflect plant
sugar levels, but are also an indication of mineral content and general
plant health. The refractometer measures brix levels. High brix crops will
have a higher sugar and mineral content, higher true protein content and a
greater specific gravity or density. High brix produce is sweeter tasting
and more minerally nutritious, with a lower nitrate and water content and
better storage characteristics.

Elevated brix levels also confer an inherent insect resistance, as the plant
tends to produce more alcohol from fermented sugars. This alcohol content is
inconsistent with the digestive systems of many leaf and fruit-eating
insects. In fact, it is toxic to these pests, resulting in a reduction in
pesticide usage.
Crops with a higher sugar content will also have a lower freezing point,
with an associated protection against frost damage.

Brix levels are also an indication of soil fertility. Low brix plants are
inevitably a reflection of poor mineralisation. Biologically available
calcium and phosphate will be deficient in the soil, and deficits of these
two elements will also increase weed pressure. Broadleaf weeds and
sourgrasses grow more prolifically in soils lacking calcium and phosphate.
In fact, it is possible to kill a dandelion with the simple application of
soft rock phosphate, which contains both of these minerals.

Analysing brix readings:
The refractometer is an invaluable fertility monitor. Brix readings can
define the probability of yield limitations and the likelihood of pest and
weed pressure. This instrument can also highlight destructive fertilising
and crop management practices. For example, brix readings will often drop
following the misuse of dolomite, an oversupply of nitrogen and potassium
(particularly muriate of potash) or following blanket-herbiciding.

US consultant, Dr Carey Reams, developed a crop-specific comparison chart
for brix readings, called 'The Refractive Index of Crop Juices'. Check it
out for eye-opening comparrisons

http://www.crossroads.ws/brix/index-page6.html

some popularized articles on brix :

http://www.crossroads.ws/brixbook/BBook.htm

But
> so far into the discussion, I'm still looking for a reason as to why
> introduce pests at all.

Its really a matter of NOT having the techniques to NOT introduce pests, by
accident or mixed in with beneficial elements. So since it will be
impossible to screen them out, the best would be to give them no medium to
grow. That way, they control/erradicate themselves.

>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?

Again, no one would knowingly bring in pests, weed seeds/spores, etc. It
would just happen in the course of living and setting up the new
environment.However , knowing that you do not have a good environment for
non-wantedspecies, then you can relax a bit in your anti-contamination
procedures, knowing that no harm (or little) will come of it.

Since you are basically trying to control the environment, you are "king" as
to what willbe attractive living condition or not. How many toucans do you
see in your neighborhood? Probably not too many since it isn't an attractive
environment for them.

> 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!

Not necessarily simple though, you do have to work at it like anything else.
Different products have different needs, so you do need to do planning in
set-up.

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

No, they don't. They seek out optimal conditions for THEIR growth and well
being. You may have an overlap zone where both can exist, but this does not
mean that it is the optimum environment for your selected plants, only that
they can survive.

> > 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?

Look around you... generally speaking (I hope) everyone around you is not
sick all at once. It depends on your own constitution, body defense
strength. If you are tired, stressed, not properly nourished then you'll
"catch" everything around. If your strong, you won't. (We won't get into
homeopathy vs allopathic :-) If you are strong and you do catch something,
your body magnificent immune system that has allowed the species to grow
over what many say have been eons, will keep doing its natural stuff (as
long as you supply it what it needs, (what ever THAT is :-)

THAT was the point of the whole thread. Keep environment as close to Earth
as possible, so that we don't accidently leave out THE key or rather
themultiple keys to our survival in advertintly

My favorite anecdote in business is that 50% of advertisement is wasted....
problem is knowing which 50% :-)

> > 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?

Haha ! Its not up to us to decide if we are gonna bring the bugs. Again we
won't get into homeopathy :-) Sufficient that the human organism is a catch
all of all manor of microbes, bacteria, and "none-original- spec-add-ons"
etc. Some beneficial as the mitochodria symbiosis, and gut bacteria. Other
not, like the dozens of parasites you likely have in liver, and other
internal parts. yech.

The main reason to head for the stars, is diversity of locations for our
gene /specie to be able to perhaps survive a 'pestulance" of our home world.
Being around for the scant years we claim to have is not comforting when one
sees ants, cockroaches, alligators, sharks that seem to have a way big head
start on us in survival. :-)