The ghost of farming future
- Thread starter martian
- Start date
90hp farming
Member
I just caught part of dr. Michael Moseley`s food programme on television last night. They were talking about the imminent possibility of sending a stool sample to a lab in Israel. the subsequent analysis would then advise on the correct diet to suit an individual, based on the specific bacteria content of their gut. The theory being that one eats what one`s own body is best able to utilise for the most efficient metabolism. This will reduce the pressure of diabetes, obesity et al.
What if we could send in a sample of soil ...............?
What if we could send in a sample of soil ...............?
- Location
- Essex Coast
Never measured them but it would be safe to assume that peas are very shallow rooting, a matter of a few inches, where as lucerne goes down six or more feet and beans may be two of three feet.
i saw that and had similar thoughts !
The soil here has run together on the surface after peas, certainly. Luckily the wheat looks fantastic and will grow away ok. Our peaola wasn't a great success and what little osr that grew, the residue has been eaten by bugs already and isn't much help as soil armour. Thinking of using mustard next year instead of spring rape as companion to peas, shouldn't be so attractive to flea beetle/pigeon/every other pest, and it might ripen before peas too. It should leave us a bit of protection for the soil as well.
No. Top is compacted by rain, Kris Nichols said yesterday that an ordinary rain storm is the equivalent to 20 ton of TNT/acre if you measure the impact of each drop and multiply it up. We've had a storm or two since the wheat went in and the soil is too bare now...
- Location
- Essex Coast
So after peas we have low volume of residue that disappears quickly leaving it open to rain impact and shallow rooting which doesn't pull any moisture out below rooting depth. This has always been what I thought, it was interesting to here @bactosoil's comments that made me think there was something else going on.
bactosoil
Member
just caught part of dr. Michael Moseley`s food programme on television last night. They were talking about the imminent possibility of sending a stool sample to a lab in Israel. the subsequent analysis would then advise on the correct diet to suit an individual, based on the specific bacteria content of their gut. The theory being that one eats what one`s own body is best able to utilise for the most efficient metabolism. This will reduce the pressure of diabetes, obesity et al.
What if we could send in a sample of soil ...............?
i saw that and had similar thoughts !
There are tests for similar to this in development
What if we could send in a sample of soil ...............?
i saw that and had similar thoughts !
There are tests for similar to this in development
dontknowanything
Member
- Location
- Cambridge
Beans more susceptible to drought than peas for us
Dr Inghams company offer this don't they? Also advise on how to do it yourself. Analyse, diagnose and fix with appropriate compost tea I think.
http://www.soilfoodweb.com/
Not sure if they have a UK office.
- Location
- CW5 Cheshire
Hmmm, not sure Elaine would be impressed with you sending her a sample of your stools, and as good as compost tea might be, I wouldn't want to drink it.
- Location
- Hertfordshire
I was intrigued by this comment about TNT.
20t/acre is about 4kg per square yard. I looked up TNT and 1 gramme creates about 1 litre of gas when it detonates, so 4,000g would create 4,000 litres of gas - that's quite a crater and, I would venture, much more destructive than an ordinary rainstorm....
Maybe she was just talking about the TNT landing on the soil and not blowing up? I may have got the figures wrong, we'll have to ask @Feldspar, he's sat through the tapes.
Whatever the numbers, if you watch those dramatic slow-motion close up films of raindrops hitting bare soil with each one splattering particles of dirt as high and wide as a yard above the ground, then it doesn't seem that preposterous to multiply up the trillions of raindrops that will fall on each acre in a storm and come to 20T of explosive.
Whatever the numbers, if you watch those dramatic slow-motion close up films of raindrops hitting bare soil with each one splattering particles of dirt as high and wide as a yard above the ground, then it doesn't seem that preposterous to multiply up the trillions of raindrops that will fall on each acre in a storm and come to 20T of explosive.
Feldspar
Member
- Location
- Essex, Cambs and Suffolk
I'm about 3/4 through. I need to watch the rest. Haven't come across the TNT comparison yet.
dontknowanything
Member
- Location
- Cambridge
She's not immune from hyperbole
dontknowanything
Member
- Location
- Cambridge
I've been thinking about this some more, because, like you, I thought it sounded ludicrous at first. But I wonder...firstly, an "ordinary" rainstorm is very different in the mid west compared to the UK. I remember noting their rain gauges out there are only marked in inches, and go up to about 12. Secondly, the big difference would have to be that TNT goes off all at once, and a rainstorm could happen over the course of several hours. So although the two would look very different, I suppose it could be plausible that the total amount of energy is at least comparable?
bactosoil
Member
http://notill.org/sites/default/fil...ess-of-water-infiltration-by-rolf-derpsch.pdf
the most uptodate reference in this is 2002 quickly looking , the huge factor it completely omits is how biofilm formation can have a very rapid and profound effects on water infiltration
the most uptodate reference in this is 2002 quickly looking , the huge factor it completely omits is how biofilm formation can have a very rapid and profound effects on water infiltration
- Location
- Hertfordshire
".......In one year, the rainfall is equivalent to 20t/acre of TNT."
That's more plausible
Feldspar
Member
- Location
- Essex, Cambs and Suffolk
The energy contained in one tonne of TNT is peculiarly precisely defined as a unit of energy thus:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TNT_equivalent
So, using the value of 4.184 * 10^9 J as the energy released from one tonne of TNT, 20 tonnes of TNT going off gives 83.68 * 10^9 J.
The next question is what an 'ordinary rain storm'? Take this monthly record in 2009 from Bismark, ND:
https://www.wunderground.com/histor...statename=&reqdb.zip=&reqdb.magic=&reqdb.wmo=
OK this is not near the Roedale Institute, but what the hell, it's a fashionable no-till pilgrimage destination. The daily mm rainfall varied from 0 mm right up to 81 mm. Looking at other months I can't see any particular event that I see and think, "Ah, an ordinary rain storm"! Let's plug in 15 mm just for the moment.
15 mm of rain falling over one acre is 60.7 cubic metres of water per acre which weighs 60.7 tonnes. The back-of-the-envelope guessing really comes in at the guess for the distribution of rain drop speeds relative to their mass (in fact there's some quite counter-intuitive science in this area: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/08/confirmed-some-raindrops-fall-faster-they-should). Because I can't be bothered, I'm going to assume that all raindrops hit the ground at 10 m/s (an upper limit from this source: http://pmm.nasa.gov/resources/faq/how-fast-do-raindrops-fall).
The energy of that 15 mm of rainfall that is imparted to the soil is therefore: kinetic energy = 0.5*m*v^2 = 0.5 * (60.7*10^3) * 10^2 = 3.035*10^6 J.
So, no, an 'ordinary rain storm' does not impart anywhere near as much energy to the soil as the amount of energy released when 20t of TNT explodes. I've guessed a few figures, but the difference in the numbers by many orders of magnitude makes the errors in those guesses relatively small.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TNT_equivalent
So, using the value of 4.184 * 10^9 J as the energy released from one tonne of TNT, 20 tonnes of TNT going off gives 83.68 * 10^9 J.
The next question is what an 'ordinary rain storm'? Take this monthly record in 2009 from Bismark, ND:
https://www.wunderground.com/histor...statename=&reqdb.zip=&reqdb.magic=&reqdb.wmo=
OK this is not near the Roedale Institute, but what the hell, it's a fashionable no-till pilgrimage destination. The daily mm rainfall varied from 0 mm right up to 81 mm. Looking at other months I can't see any particular event that I see and think, "Ah, an ordinary rain storm"! Let's plug in 15 mm just for the moment.
15 mm of rain falling over one acre is 60.7 cubic metres of water per acre which weighs 60.7 tonnes. The back-of-the-envelope guessing really comes in at the guess for the distribution of rain drop speeds relative to their mass (in fact there's some quite counter-intuitive science in this area: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/08/confirmed-some-raindrops-fall-faster-they-should). Because I can't be bothered, I'm going to assume that all raindrops hit the ground at 10 m/s (an upper limit from this source: http://pmm.nasa.gov/resources/faq/how-fast-do-raindrops-fall).
The energy of that 15 mm of rainfall that is imparted to the soil is therefore: kinetic energy = 0.5*m*v^2 = 0.5 * (60.7*10^3) * 10^2 = 3.035*10^6 J.
So, no, an 'ordinary rain storm' does not impart anywhere near as much energy to the soil as the amount of energy released when 20t of TNT explodes. I've guessed a few figures, but the difference in the numbers by many orders of magnitude makes the errors in those guesses relatively small.
Last edited: