Incredible ..... solid water!

[Did67]

Obamot: I am an agronomist by training, a graduate if you want. I worked as an agronomist, in rural development, in arid environments (Chad, Niger and Namibia) for 12 years. Including 4 years for 100% gratitude for a French NGO (years, which today, at 60, and that I was the victim of an in factus, are sorely lacking in my years of contributions for retirement) . It's just to say that it was not in capitals in air-conditioned offices, not for multinationals and not for money ...

This does not mean that I am necessarily right. All the same, a little lived behind. Thousands and thousands of hours of discussions with poor farmers, often illiterate, by 45 ° in the shade of a baobab or an acacia (pardons: Faidherbia, for not being foolishly caught up) ...

But either, I was totally sucked. But very bad.

Either I know a little more than what I can write in a few posts. Let me not answer point by point, even if some are wrong. A tropical agronomy treaty is not the subject of this thread. And besides, being precise would take me too much time / too much space.

[Just this: Of course growing corn, one of the most water-demanding plants, in arid environments is not a good idea; its cousins, sorghum or millet, are infinitely more suited to "extracting water from dry soil" - without having the genetic potential of 100 quintals / ha; but there also: why put this symbolic figure of 100 quintals / ha highlighted in the article, in connection with arid zones? If not sensationalism? This is what put me in doubt and anger from the first reading and say: "it's pipo!" I maintain. You believe it. I respect. I also write for others forumeurs who pass by there]

[moinsdewatt]

I say it again: it's old; of memory, 20 or 30 years!

I repeat: learn to beware of the media and not drink to their sources of sensations (whose main purpose is to sell ... information, even if it is partial, mounted foam ...)

Let's learn not to lose our common sense. I remind you that according to the data of this "article" (I do not call it an article, but "bullshit in sentences"), it would take 5 tons per hectare to store half the water it maize, selected and fertilized and processed elsewhere, is needed to reach 100 quintals.

[and Obamot, you would come out of these exchanges grown up if you could admit that you got carried away a bit quickly - just reread the second post in this thread: "revolutionary ..." before turning me on like I was a asshole who has understood nothing! But hey, you do well as you want. I do not judge you. I express an opinion]

+10 for Did.

Indeed, potassium polyacrylate has been known for more than 20 years as a water retentive.

see this page http://www.cristaldeau.eu/html/Cristald ... nique.html

created in 1976, the Cristaldeau has been marketed since 1990 for the general public.
Anxious to constantly offer better products to our customers, we have since many times improved the Cristaldeau. The fourth generation of Cristaldeau was launched on the market in 2008.

The Cristaldeau is a hydroretentor specialized for watering plants. It consists of potassium (potassium polyacrylate).

The Cristaldeau is manufactured and assembled in France by our company.

The Cristaldeau is not toxic: it has been tested by the Institut Pasteur. The dyes are food grade.

The Cristaldeau is completely ecological: the crystals are 100% biodegradable over 5 years (20 to 30% per year).

The Cristaldeau is approved by the Ministry of Agriculture (approval n ° 9110045).

The Cristaldeau can be reused for at least 3 years: rinse it regularly and make it re-inflate when it dries.
When dry, the crystals can be stored for many years.

The Cristaldeau has won numerous awards, including:
bronze medal at the Lépine Competition in Paris in 1996,
gold medal of the Lépine Competition in Lyon in 1998.

Well, now that in Mexico a chemist is putting this back in the spotlight, why not.

But obviously Patrice Gouy, the correspondent in Mexico City who allowed the report in the Point cited in the first post, did not try to find out if it was really a novelty.
But it is not surprising that journalists today do not do their job. Sensationalism pays off, and that's it.
I also see a lot of nonsense, in fact unverified, of figures or orders of magnitude are completely false in Le Figaro.

[moinsdewatt]

for information :

What is potassium polyacrylate?

Identification Name Potassium polyacrylate

Molecular Formula (C3H6O2)n.(C3H5KO2)m

[highfly-addict]

Funny, funny, sad, predictable?

The fact remains that this discussion has been going in circles (and round and round little patapon ..) since .... A big week.

I salute Did67 for his patience and relevance!

Question: Now that it has been clearly established that potassium polyacrylate has been known and used as a water-retaining agent for plants for more than 30 years, why is it not used on a large scale? Hmm?

[Did67]

Since you stay in the factual, some items response (at the risk of another Obamot salvo):

a) retenters can only store falling water; I have given above ideas of the quantities in question for a field crop; we are no longer in the pot on the edge of the balcony!

b) agriculture in arid regions are systems with "very low inputs": almost no sales, almost no income, therefore almost no fertilizers / pesticides ....

This is what the poor farmers are supposed to save by this powder (see below).

With the exception of high-value irrigated systems (generally for export, in the hands of foreign investors - more and more often Chinese! "Peasants" reduced to "workers" not to say slaves ...)

This product, like pesticides, is not accessible to poor farmers. Especially at the doses indicated ...

Especially in spays without transport, with corruption and customs taxes (official, and para-official).

c) one of the characteristics not yet addressed is the extreme variability of climatic conditions (I liked, in my time, to popularize this with the shock formula: "it would be abnormal for the rainy season to be normal!"), a year in x is extremely dry; therefore the agreed investment would be lost; therefore the peasant indebted to usurers who will not give him any gifts (agricultural credit does not exist there! And the usurer, if he is rich, it is because he is always reimbursed, at the price of the famine of his neighbors - not to think "naively" that these poor people are nice to each other!) so ... he prefers to stay where he is! And only learned imbeciles prove him wrong.

d) the miracle yields announced are only so in a "production system" also including genetics (purchased hybrid seeds), fertilizers (natural or chemical - the natural ones, therefore "organic", being even more expensive!), pesticides ( a green corn, promising 100 quintals ha, would be caviar for all pests!)

A field is a whole. To take a picture: you put Formula 1 tires (Schumacher is doing his "BA"!) On a patched 403 station wagon (he still drives in the Sahel!), It will always be a patched 403 station wagon !!! Obvious, right?

e) the announced “performances” would still have to be validated: durability in the soil of 10 years ???? Given the degradation capacities of the soil's biological life, we can at least ask the question ...

f) even in intensive systems (with us therefore), at the indicated price (400 euros for 25 kgs; to store half the water requirement of an "intensive" corn, I recall my calculation, 5 tonnes per ha; this represents 80 euros per ha, i.e., if 000 years of sustainability have been proven, 10 euros per ha and per year; in an intensive system, all the direct inputs of one hectare of corn represent around 500 euros ; mass has been said ! A little peasant common sense, from time to time, even in a forum which sometimes borders on esotericism, does not hurt!)

source (to avoid being foolishly turned on): http://www.insee.fr/fr/ffc/docs_ffc/ref/agrifra07f.pdf

Irrigation, even with diesel generators, is given nearby!

Intensive agriculture (that of us) is a heavy industry (enormous capital), which produces foodstuffs at very low prices - therefore where the production costs are "drawn" to the maximum (compare the liter of milk paid 20 and a few cents, to a liter of mineral water, just bottled at the outlet of the catchment, and it all becomes crystal clear! Know also that the price of a kilo of meat at production has not changed in nominal, for more 20 or 30 years old). It is not because of the ecologists, but for these data there that the intensive system is today in total impasse. But that would be another debate. I'm drifting.

No, I maintain that the initial article is swimming in an angelism ... incredible !!!

[aware that all this is simplified to the limit of caricature; but a treaty of tropical agronomy would take me at the very least a few 100taines pages! So that Obamot can ignite all this, point by point, by final sentences ... or targeted extracts]

[Obamot]

Huge !

Ahmed is right, I leave those who wish to kill each other ...>

Good day to others!

[highfly-addict]

Thank you Did67 for this informed opinion!

Well, I think that's for sure, it's not in this direction that we should look for an agronomic "revolution". Point.

[Did67]

One of the positive things I haven't experienced: the impact of fair trade (whatever the label). Correctly paid, at fair value, farmers organize themselves very well to "progress", as they want, them ...

If each of us really wanted to do "something" it would be enough to get the producer to be paid properly! The impact on the final price is often quite limited ...

Notice to those who really want to change things ...

The others will be satisfied with miracle powders, well, exactly alibi miracle powders. And utter "enormous"!

The revolutions of "agricultural production systems" are as much social as they are economic as well as technical ... I put the technique not last, because it is its place.

In feedback, this leads any curious man to wonder about the "value" of our society dominated by technology. Hence his great human poverty ???? It is a hypothesis.

[Ahmed]

Obamot, you write:

Joking aside, I'm always excited about this great idea ... whether it's old or not does not matter to me.

This enthusiasm is to your credit when you consider that what motivates it is the possibility, at least theoretical, of bringing relief to the victims of malnutrition.
However, as said Merleau Ponty:

"The consoling truths must be checked twice"

My knowledge in agronomy is much more modest than that of Did67, but his arguments appear to me to be solidly founded and, moreover, consistent with what I felt when reading this visibly sensationalist article.