61–70 of 81 posts
It's crazy how scientists are researching worms for Mars and yet our scientists in agriculture actively preach practices that compact soil and kill soil biology. Monsanto chemicals and John Deeres tractors are ruining systems that literally self renew. Maybe we should try to work with earth's nature here before trying to emulate it on another planet?
I'll paste in my previous comment about this. The tone is bit harsh, the context was more hypeful > Ugh. I feel like Wamelinks researchs importance is way overblown. Hydroponics has shown that you need no soil to grow plants, so is it really surprising that Mars soil simultant that has been specifically treated to be friendly can sustain plants and worms? Especially when the simultant might not have been very accurat…
Also, if we work out which plants kinda work, we might be able to isolate the genes that improve survival and add them to other plants.
I feel like sending earth worms to Mars is like sending pigs to South America. Perhaps there is nothing living there... I don't know. But do we need to have such an imperialist attitude with planets too?
It's a barren rock. You're not displacing native lifeforms, because there are no lifeforms. It's as imperialist as shouting "I'm the king of the world" in Antarctica.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Imperialism is not a bad thing. Successful species spread and thrive. Failed species are extinct -- and we will be too if we don't get off this rock.
That sounds like the mantra of an anthropomorphised virus. But my down-votes seem to suggest it's popular opinion here. I'm just saying there was more to learn from America than "potatoes and corn are good".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My family are based in New Zealand and make a feriliser that is high in carbon and micronutrients (we use seaweed). Even after pot trials and field trials showing massive benefits we found it nearly impossible to sell to farmers. Generally they are sick of snake oil salesmen peddling the next best product. Farmers mindsets are almost immutable - we even had farmers who used some and saw the anecdotal benefits (worms)…
Could it be because it is impossible for the farmers to determine long-term effects (e.g. damage to the soil, etc.), and they don't want to risk adopting a potential "time bomb"?
Although I would argue that some of it is common sense which is eschewed because of the thin margins. In NZ, farmers will annually replace phosphate, nitrogen, and potassium because they know it is lost to produce/erosion/environmental factors. But the same isn't true of 20+ other nutrients that make a healthy soil. Soil is like the human body which has an amazing ability to survive on just bread and water, but that doesn't necessarily mean that's all you should feed it
The big issue with either growing plants on Mars or simply being exposed to Martian dust is perchlorates in the soil: https://www.space.com/21554-mars-toxic-perchlorate-chemicals...
I'll paste in my previous comment about this. The tone is bit harsh, the context was more hypeful > Ugh. I feel like Wamelinks researchs importance is way overblown. Hydroponics has shown that you need no soil to grow plants, so is it really surprising that Mars soil simultant that has been specifically treated to be friendly can sustain plants and worms? Especially when the simultant might not have been very accurat…
It's not like we are going to be growing outside on Mars anyway. It will need to be under UV LEDs and solar powered. I expect the energy use of reclaiming the water from the air would be more than would be saved by trying to use solar lighting.
I like the idea of terraforming mars, but it seems like we are still going to be stuck living in bubbles anyway since it has no core or ability to block the various solar / cosmic waves that would wreck plants and animals and blast away any attempts at building a atmosphere.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could it be because it is impossible for the farmers to determine long-term effects (e.g. damage to the soil, etc.), and they don't want to risk adopting a potential "time bomb"?
Yes it certainly could be that. The margins for sheep & beef farmers especially are quite thin so they are essentially surviving year to year and wouldn't want to risk even a short-term impacts. Although I would argue that some of it is common sense which is eschewed because of the thin margins. In NZ, farmers will annually replace phosphate, nitrogen, and potassium because they know it is lost to produce/erosion/env…