shredded coconut husk mushroom problems!!

Ictinike

Arachnobaron
Old Timer
Joined
Aug 30, 2009
Messages
460
While I won't get into personal rants about these types of issues, depleating of resources, etc, there comes a time when one must realize that while we do a real good job of mucking up the planet the planet also has ways of taking back.

Forest Fires that are caused by lightning causes millions and millions of damage to human homes and businesses but at the same time it's vital for some conifers and evergreens to have their seeds charred by forest fires.

Does this mean forest fires are bad? Maybe to those who've lost homes and material things but in the above scenario fire is needed and expected by those species of plants and animals who've worked around annual fires.

Who's wrong here? Just by our existence we've changed the dynamic and there will come a time when nature will have enough and decided to shake the very nuisance that is man; if she feels so strongly about it.

If the bogs or the coco fields are raped by man I'm sure we'll find another way or evolve into another path for we are mere animals, no different that any, albeit with a higher competency to self destruct.
 

Stan Schultz

Arachnoprince
Old Timer
Joined
Jul 16, 2004
Messages
1,677
I'm coming down rather hard on you in an effort to dispel a massive misunderstanding held by far too many armchair naturalists and the vast number of ignorati who've been hoodwinked by them.

I can't blame you for holding this against me, but maybe in the years to come you'll gradually come to see the truth. Forgive me for being as religiously adamant as you.

... peat mining is an unethical practice that so one seems to know or care about. ...
"Unethical?" How so? Or, in what way that's different or less ethical than our or your use of any other natural resource?

Let's face facts. We're all damned souls in Hell unless we live naked in a swamp, eating grubs and roots. Oops! Sorry. In the broad sense, even eating grubs and roots is also an unethical practice since it uses a natural resource.

What would you suggest as an alternative to your polyester clothes, your cell phone, your gas guzzling car, your leather shoes, the steak you ate last night, etc.

I'm not buying it. I have every much a right to live on this planet as any of the other creatures that evolved here. The fact that my species has managed to learn the magical arts of controlling and usurping the resources of this planet while none others have is not of itself bad, unethical, immoral, illegal, or fattening.

And while the argument goes that what we're doing is in some small way promoting changes and damaging "the environment," those changes are nothing new, nothing that hasn't already happened at least several times before man was even a twinkle in Mother Nature's eye. (Please forgive the anthropomorphism.)

Mother nature doesn't give a d@$n about the tarantula that died parasitized by a wasp, the deer that was gutted alive by wolves, the little fish that was eaten by the big one, the big fish that was eaten by a bigger one, or even by our "unethical practice" of using peat from a bog.

After the deed is done, Mother Nature merely makes an adjustment and life on Earth moves on. Some species go extinct. Others arise de novo. It's been happening for 3.8 billion years, and with many, many millions of species. It'll continue to happen for another 5 billion years. And, Earth abides.

You vastly overestimate the importance of our and your participation in the vast scheme of things. Such egocentrism! Such audacity!

In the far distant future, the descendants of our little 8-legged buddies will be digging burrows on our graves!

(Also, please visit http://people.ucalgary.ca/~schultz/errata3.html#p139a.)
 

codykrr

Arachnoking
Old Timer
Joined
Sep 22, 2008
Messages
3,112
I'm coming down rather hard on you in an effort to dispel a massive misunderstanding held by far too many armchair naturalists and the vast number of ignorati who've been hoodwinked by them.

I can't blame you for holding this against me, but maybe in the years to come you'll gradually come to see the truth. Forgive me for being as religiously adamant as you.



"Unethical?" How so? Or, in what way that's different or less ethical than our or your use of any other natural resource?

Let's face facts. We're all damned souls in Hell unless we live naked in a swamp, eating grubs and roots. Oops! Sorry. In the broad sense, even eating grubs and roots is also an unethical practice since it uses a natural resource.

What would you suggest as an alternative to your polyester clothes, your cell phone, your gas guzzling car, your leather shoes, the steak you ate last night, etc.

I'm not buying it. I have every much a right to live on this planet as any of the other creatures that evolved here. The fact that my species has managed to learn the magical arts of controlling and usurping the resources of this planet while none others have is not of itself bad, unethical, immoral, illegal, or fattening.

And while the argument goes that what we're doing is in some small way promoting changes and damaging "the environment," those changes are nothing new, nothing that hasn't already happened at least several times before man was even a twinkle in Mother Nature's eye. (Please forgive the anthropomorphism.)

Mother nature doesn't give a d@$n about the tarantula that died parasitized by a wasp, the deer that was gutted alive by wolves, the little fish that was eaten by the big one, the big fish that was eaten by a bigger one, or even by our "unethical practice" of using peat from a bog.

After the deed is done, Mother Nature merely makes an adjustment and life on Earth moves on. Some species go extinct. Others arise de novo. It's been happening for 3.8 billion years, and with many, many millions of species. It'll continue to happen for another 5 billion years. And, Earth abides.

You vastly overestimate the importance of our and your participation in the vast scheme of things. Such egocentrism! Such audacity!

In the far distant future, the descendants of our little 8-legged buddies will be digging burrows on our graves!

(Also, please visit http://people.ucalgary.ca/~schultz/errata3.html#p139a.)
saved me some typing! LOL. I can fully say I agree 100% to that rant.

Like I said earlier, I wont debate this topic again(Stan I know you have before as well-I was in that thread a few years ago too), but dont base the purchase on which is more "eco friendly" because both are destroying something that took vast amount of time to create and years to destroy.

I will say, from research in this subject in the past, Most(not all) canadian Sphagnum peat farms are on old bogs that have dried out, and very little lives on. except for grass. and maybe a few various other species of insect, and small mammal.

Also if you consider the living conditions the workers live in and work in to harvest coco fiber it makes vacuuming peat off a field look like cake.(not all coconut farm are bad quality either im sure) but a lot are.

Anyway. this topic is senseless. As it boils down to personal preference, and in my findings, its hard to turn someones preference.Especially established ones.
 

MIC

Arachnosquire
Old Timer
Joined
Sep 5, 2009
Messages
129
I had also the same kind of mushrooms in a couple of mine enclosures without any problem, except a slight irritant odour (IMO) that i don't like.

My only action, when I was stuffed of this, was simply uprooting the mushrooms for some short period of time (because they usually tend to re-emerge for a couple of times) and in the meantime to mantain a lower humidity in the enclosure.
 

bloodred1889

Arachnoknight
Old Timer
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
284
well ive redone my cobots tank with cocofibre but its just temp because im getting two tall rectangle shaped tanks for my burrowers one for my cobolt and the other one was for my h,minax but she died. but today i bought another sub adult h.lividum :D
and im going to use what it says in the tarantulas keepers quide for the best burrow which is just normal garden soil. i know a shop near me that sells a brand that is organic with nothing else in it.
cant wait to get my new tanks and put both my h.lividums in them and watch the diffrences between them :D

thanks for all your opinions.
-bloodred
 

LeilaNami

Arachnoking
Old Timer
Joined
Jun 8, 2006
Messages
2,164
I'm coming down rather hard on you in an effort to dispel a massive misunderstanding held by far too many armchair naturalists and the vast number of ignorati who've been hoodwinked by them.

I can't blame you for holding this against me, but maybe in the years to come you'll gradually come to see the truth. Forgive me for being as religiously adamant as you.



"Unethical?" How so? Or, in what way that's different or less ethical than our or your use of any other natural resource?

Let's face facts. We're all damned souls in Hell unless we live naked in a swamp, eating grubs and roots. Oops! Sorry. In the broad sense, even eating grubs and roots is also an unethical practice since it uses a natural resource.

What would you suggest as an alternative to your polyester clothes, your cell phone, your gas guzzling car, your leather shoes, the steak you ate last night, etc.

I'm not buying it. I have every much a right to live on this planet as any of the other creatures that evolved here. The fact that my species has managed to learn the magical arts of controlling and usurping the resources of this planet while none others have is not of itself bad, unethical, immoral, illegal, or fattening.

And while the argument goes that what we're doing is in some small way promoting changes and damaging "the environment," those changes are nothing new, nothing that hasn't already happened at least several times before man was even a twinkle in Mother Nature's eye. (Please forgive the anthropomorphism.)

Mother nature doesn't give a d@$n about the tarantula that died parasitized by a wasp, the deer that was gutted alive by wolves, the little fish that was eaten by the big one, the big fish that was eaten by a bigger one, or even by our "unethical practice" of using peat from a bog.

After the deed is done, Mother Nature merely makes an adjustment and life on Earth moves on. Some species go extinct. Others arise de novo. It's been happening for 3.8 billion years, and with many, many millions of species. It'll continue to happen for another 5 billion years. And, Earth abides.

You vastly overestimate the importance of our and your participation in the vast scheme of things. Such egocentrism! Such audacity!

In the far distant future, the descendants of our little 8-legged buddies will be digging burrows on our graves!

(Also, please visit http://people.ucalgary.ca/~schultz/errata3.html#p139a.)
You have completely misunderstood everything I have said in this thread complete with incorrect, egotistical assumptions. Using natural resources is not unethical and I never said it was. Using things that may harm the environment that can quickly recover or using resources that are renewable are a completely different matter than what I am actually discussing. Have you even read the threads?

Decimating a practically (and probably) nonrenewable resource is unethical, especially for things we don't need to use while alternatives are widely available. Humans constantly take pride in being able to overcome instinct and natural ability yet when it comes to actually controlling yourself it seems you arbitrarily choose "I'm just an animal too". Other populations of animals have predators and such that keep them from overpopulating their niche while we do not and have the ability to completely overtake and destroy anything we choose. Of course nature doesn't give a crap of our existence because we are nothing but a speck in time. You want to talk about egocentrism? Take a look at yourself and what you just posted. Just because Earth abides in the end does not make our practices ethical or justified and I find it incredibly sad that people even entertain this view.

Cody, you have completely ignored my counter argument by repeating your previous statement. Dried bogs are not a dead ecosystem. They try and re-establish bogs they do mine (and they still regularly mine bogs that have not dried up) but they fail or is a completely different ecosystem from before. Also, the peat layer they leave is inadequate to support the flora that had been there.

I am simply bringing to light an issue that is often overlooked and might change your choice in paths to take. I am not here to condemn you for using peat but I feel very strongly about this issue being that ecology is my field of study.
 

REAPER591

Arachnopeon
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
32
Last I checked..... coco bedding is made from the husks of coconuts. Meaning that they took a by-product waste material and found a use for it. I find it laughable to think that some folks here believe that they are de-foresting for the sake of coconut husks. {D
 

MIC

Arachnosquire
Old Timer
Joined
Sep 5, 2009
Messages
129
You have completely misunderstood everything I have said in this thread complete with incorrect, egotistical assumptions. Using natural resources is not unethical and I never said it was. Using things that may harm the environment that can quickly recover or using resources that are renewable are a completely different matter than what I am actually discussing. Have you even read the threads?

Decimating a practically (and probably) nonrenewable resource is unethical, especially for things we don't need to use while alternatives are widely available. Humans constantly take pride in being able to overcome instinct and natural ability yet when it comes to actually controlling yourself it seems you arbitrarily choose "I'm just an animal too". Other populations of animals have predators and such that keep them from overpopulating their niche while we do not and have the ability to completely overtake and destroy anything we choose. Of course nature doesn't give a crap of our existence because we are nothing but a speck in time. You want to talk about egocentrism? Take a look at yourself and what you just posted. Just because Earth abides in the end does not make our practices ethical or justified and I find it incredibly sad that people even entertain this view.

Cody, you have completely ignored my counter argument by repeating your previous statement. Dried bogs are not a dead ecosystem. They try and re-establish bogs they do mine (and they still regularly mine bogs that have not dried up) but they fail or is a completely different ecosystem from before. Also, the peat layer they leave is inadequate to support the flora that had been there.

I am simply bringing to light an issue that is often overlooked and might change your choice in paths to take. I am not here to condemn you for using peat but I feel very strongly about this issue being that ecology is my field of study.
I would add that our planet is a small and delicate ecosystem that it can make through small changes but suffers pain from bigger ones. Unfortunately humans have reached the ability to "accelerate the time" in terms of environmental changes. Millions of years of evolution are now substituted by few years of humam activity and there is no need to report examples that everybody know.
So yes Mother Nature can heal an ecological wound but I doubt she can raise up from the dead unless we accept that NO LIFE is another option in our planet evolution.
 

Bill S

Arachnoprince
Old Timer
Joined
Oct 2, 2006
Messages
1,418
Last I checked..... coco bedding is made from the husks of coconuts. Meaning that they took a by-product waste material and found a use for it. I find it laughable to think that some folks here believe that they are de-foresting for the sake of coconut husks. {D
Have you got a source for this? Many years ago I worked for a company that grew exotic plants, and a one product used as a growing medium came from the trunk of palm trees, not the husks of the fruit. And the material from the trunk is highly fibrous. I've never seen any reliable description of how coco fiber is produced, but your comment makes me wonder. In either case, coconut and other palm trees are a renewable resource, and groves are planted and cultivated. That certainly makes the potential for benign environmental impact high.

I'm not familiar enough with the real impact of peat mining to get worked up one way or the other about it. Certainly there's the potential for it being environmentally destructive - but I'd like to see actual statistics fom modern peat operations before passing judgement.
 

Bill S

Arachnoprince
Old Timer
Joined
Oct 2, 2006
Messages
1,418
Unless they are intentionally deceiving us about how it's made I'd say that's pretty straightforward.
Thanks for the info. Their wrappers (I usually have at least one around the house) state the green, renewable resource angle, but don't specifically mention the coconut husk. They'd have more to lose than gain if they put false information on their advertising, so I'll believe them. And I guess this knocks down the stories (and videos) of forests being destroyed for tarantula substrate.
 

Bill S

Arachnoprince
Old Timer
Joined
Oct 2, 2006
Messages
1,418
So yes Mother Nature can heal an ecological wound but I doubt she can raise up from the dead unless we accept that NO LIFE is another option in our planet evolution.
I'm sure someone will jump in with the idea that "Life will find a way", so I'll suggest that LIFE will indeed continue. However, the diversity of life will undoubtedly be affected by our actions. I'd prefer not to live in a world where "wildlife" meant more than sewer rats, pigeons and cockroaches.
 
Top