- cross-posted to:
- farming@slrpnk.net
- cross-posted to:
- farming@slrpnk.net
Our retention pond in our neighborhood has a lot of algae and problematic plant growth due to the surrounding farms and lawn runoff, so we’re experimenting with a floating island to pull nutrients out before they can cause problems. This will also provide some interesting flowering plants, and more fish habitats.
Will be an interesting experiment to see what survives and what does poorly.
Zinnias, sunflowers, marigolds, and a few others are in net pots, inserted into cutouts in EVA foam mats.
Design is from:
http://www.beemats.com/
More reading:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/02/flowers-grown-floating-on-polluted-waterways-can-help-clean-up-nutrient-runoff/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666765723000637?via%3Dihub
Love it, but we’re not as concerned about metals or toxins as we are about excess nutrients.
The papers I listed have plants that they’ve been using for their remediation, and we’re following those lists. I know some of the researchers on those projects, and we’ll modify our plant list based on any changes in their recommendations.
Cannabis would pull out excess nutrients as well, I’m just saying there’s probably other options if you wanted to do a little research, but apparently no one wanted to discuss this topic.
I am doing research on this, why do you think I’m not? I posted several links to resources.
Well you rebuffed and turned additional avenues I gave you to look up, it didn’t sound like you were willing to do anything additional. Cannabis does all of those things you are looking for, so clearly there’s more than what the researches you’re using for options.
Usually when someone shares a topic they want to talk about it and learn more, is that not why you posted?
I’m not sure why you’re acting like I didn’t respond to what you posted. Your paper discussed heavy metal toxicity and I responded that this wasn’t a concern in our situation.
I’m not sure why you are offended at my post, because I responded directly to the topic you were discussing.
Through discussion, which was extremely hard, you found out that it can be used for both, and there is potentially other options you can find out for your floating garden.
Why do you think I was offended by your post? I was trying to start a discussion and you apparently immediately thought I said you didn’t do any research.
I’m not OP, but I can answer your question.
You are coming across as argumentative and rather rude about your insistence, when OP has already said whatever you want them to look into is beyond the current scope of the project, which roughly translates to “thanks, but I’m not interested in doing that right now”.
And in response to that, to telling you it’s not in the current scope of a trial project, you are implying they are not doing research or learning or whatever it is (you literally said in your second comment “if you want to do a little research” which does indeed imply you feel they didn’t do enough). When really, you just want them to do something with their time that they don’t want to do, and frankly don’t need to do at this first stage of trial. And you seem to be getting butthurt that they aren’t interested in doing what you want them to. The condescending tone in the comment I’m replying to is a dead giveaway.
Besides which, not everyone wants to deal with growing weed or hemp which looks identical. In fact, most people don’t want to deal with it (obtaining licenses, dealing with theft, etc.). So your focus on that specific plant through your comments seems really genuinely weird, like you can’t fathom people not being stoners or something. That’s quite off-putting.
If you were genuinely trying to start a conversation, you may want to look at how you approach that. When someone says they aren’t interested, like OP did, you can say “ok, well if anyone else is, or if it interests you in the future, here’s the info” and someone will probably reply to it if they want to talk about. You can’t just unilaterally decide what people are going to talk about and force them to participate if they don’t want to discuss it, which honestly seems like what you were trying to do.
Removed by mod
Look, you may not have intended it to come across that way, and I get that, but it does. I’m not trying to be mean to you or anything; we all have blind spots in communication because we can only see what we intend to say, and not how it comes across to others. I’m not involved in the conversation and that’s how it came across to me, and probably all the people downvoting you.
They are doing a thing following specific research that they are aware of and probably spent a lot of time on, and know they should be able to reproduce. As such their very first reply to you was them telling you they aren’t interested in expanding their project at this point, and sticking with what they were already planning/doing. I get that that message didn’t come across to you, but it’s absolutely there. You responded to that by saying “I guess nobody wants to discuss that” which is a guilt trip.
And I never said you were forcing anything, I said it honestly seems like that’s what you were trying to do. Which, from the outside, it really absolutely does.
Just because people post things and then don’t want to talk about something tangential to, or an expansion of, the thing they are posting about doesn’t mean they don’t want to discuss whatever it is, it means they don’t want to discuss it the same way you do, or go beyond where they already are. That’s not less valid, even if it upsets you personally to not get to have the conversation you want to.
You conveniently left out the part where I said to show me the research, and I’d read it.
So far I’ve gotten a single link to a single paper that was irrelevant to this project, and a whole lot of “you’re doing it wrong, trust me bro” from two people.