Le Dec/5/2016 à 6:37 PM, Fred J. McCall a écrit :
Alain Fournier wrote:

On Dec/4/2016 at 9:36 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Alain Fournier wrote:

On Dec/4/2016 at 2:02 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Alain Fournier wrote:

On Dec/3/2016 at 6:57 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Harri Tavaila wrote:

29.11.2016, 4:53, Fred J. McCall kirjoitti:

Try growing plants in soil with no carbon in it and see how that works
for you (it mostly will work very poorly, if at all).

I believe this is essentially what hydroponic farming is about.


Yes, but that's not what's being discussed. If you 'predigest'
everything for the plants, you can grown them in air.


Here is the silly challenge you gave me:
On Nov/30/2016 at 6:31 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
«The proof is in the pudding. Go grow some plants of various types in
«sand with no carbon content. Fertilize at will, but nothing with
«carbon as a component. Let us know how that goes.»

Oh! So that meant fertilize at will but not using the ingredients that
work. Moving the goalpost again?


If you don't know the difference between fertilizer and hydroponics,
you really are too pig ignorant to bother with.


Oh I see now. It isn't that you moved the goalpost. It is because the
dictionary doesn't have the right definition for the word fertilize.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fertilize :
fertilize
1. To make (the soil) more fertile by adding nutrients to it.

Silly me to use normal definitions for words. I now see that you were
right all along.


It's about time you figured that out. You really are just a bit of a
thickie, aren't you?


If you wish, you can keep on believing that that wasn't sarcasm. As I
have already said I don't care about that point. What I would like to
know is what does this have to do with what we were discussing. You know
growing food in a spaceship using human poop after extracting methane?


If you wish, you can keep on believing that you weren't being mocked
for engaging in stupid sarcasm. What I want to know is why you so
steadfastly run away from your original claim about plants and carbon
in the soil. You know, the thing we're discussing.

I'm not really interested in discussing phytology. I have already told
you so a few times. This is a space related news groups. But since you
are so much interested in that. My original claim about plants and
carbon in the soil is:
"Plants don't need carbon in soil, removing carbohydrates is not a
problem. Plants get their carbon from CO2 in the air."

Hydroponics proves that statement to be true. Since plants don't need
soil, they don't need carbon in soil. They do need carbon, but not in
soil. We were not talking about removing carbon from the soil. We were
talking about removing carbon from **** and then using that processed
**** to fertilize plants. If you want to grow plants in sand without
carbon, you can also do that by similar techniques. I really don't know
why anyone would want to bring sand in a spaceship to do so, but since
that is the ridiculous challenge you gave me, it could be done. I don't
care if you aren't happy about that being hydroculture.

I have already explained how organic matter in soil is useful. See my
post of Nov 29, 19h31.
The organic matter in soil is useful to keep the roots moist. But one
can find many other material to do so if wished. But one does not have
to wish to do so if one is removing carbon from **** and not from soil.
The organic matter is also useful if you have bacteria to decompose it
and in doing so release important nutrients. But if you have already
decomposed **** to extract the carbon, you already have your nutrients.

That being said, I know you are going to move the goalpost and cry but
that's not what I want. As I have told you several times I'm not
interested in discussing phytology. So be my guest and declare that my
statements are false. I don't care.


Alain Fournier