Setting Up an ELECTROCULTURE Experiment to Grow VEGETABLES

[Mandy Onderwater]

In this video, Mark has a guest. For those that don't know him, meet David (or Weedy) from The Weedy Garden.

Mark and David prepare two raised beds for the electroculture experiment, and 2 control raised beds 15 meters away without.
They got two punnets of birds-eye chilli's, two punnets of eggplants, and two punnets of Summer corn. These plants were chosen because in Mark's area it's turning into Summer and the weather is getting hot, and they wanted some plants which would naturally thrive through this time of the year. David is going to create the same setup at his place as they have now done at Mark's.

Electroculture harnesses the natural energy of the Earth using copper wire and stakes, generating a "bit of buzz" within the garden. They say that the Earth is the negative component, and the upper atmosphere is the positive component.

Stay tuned for the result video in about 3 months



Handy tip! Want to talk to Mark directly? Did you know that there is another way, outside the forum?
Support Mark on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/selfsufficientme (the top tier enables mentoring from Mark via an exclusive VIP email where he will answer your questions etc ASAP).

 

[Mandy Onderwater]

The Weedy Garden's video:

 

[Berkeloid]

When I first saw the video title I thought they were going to actually put some electricity into the ground - that would definitely have some kind of effect although I am not sure what. Just putting some wire won't do much - as Mark said in the video, how is that different to his existing metal trellis!

I suppose if you consider his pepper tree that kept being eaten by the possums - when he wrapped that in metal chicken wire it certainly grew a lot better, but I'm not sure it was down to electricity...

 

[Mandy Onderwater]

Whilst I do understand the physics of nature, I am not necessarily a believer in little "tricks" like this. I feel like it might be a "placebo" effect kind of thing, as people tend to more often check up on said beds.
Though on the flipside, I doubts it's harmful, and there is "natural electricity" in the air. I almost feel like the vibrations from the wind, gently shaking the earth might have an effect... maybe.

I am keen to see if there is a difference, and that perhaps I could get disproven. I'm all for experiments!

 

[Berkeloid]

No argument there. I am proven wrong all the time so I would never stop anyone putting an idea to the test!

I mean there are the Hessdalen Lights which for decades were written off as people being crazy, until they set up cameras and found that there are actually lights appearing from an unknown source in the mountains, probably related to stresses building up in the rocks (like you suggest from the wind). But the true cause of them is still unknown, and it is some sort of energy coming out of the Earth, so who knows what the answer might end up being!

 

[KIGardening]

Very interesting experiment. I will be waiting for the results of these two mad scientists!

If it works then it would be interesting to experiment with:

• Aluminium
• Copper coated aluminium
• Copper
• Steel

All of these have conductive materials that are reasonable cheep. However if it works it would be cool to try it with silver, considered the best conductive material for electricity. This way the experiment could be expanded to see what cost versus yield component is.

....Just sowing some electrified seeds for two mad scientists

 

[Grandmother Goose]

I was reading some time ago about a large experiment with this in China. They found that there is a significant (NB: significant in science is far less than the common English definition of the word would have us thinking of) increase in growth and production with the use of copper wiring, but huge caveat: it had to be electrified to make it work. That is, electricity had to be generated, what was naturally in the atmosphere of the area was nowhere near enough to make any difference at all.

That's not to say the Earth's atmosphere can't ever produce enough electricity, under the right conditions it can generate enough static electricity to discharge in the form of lightning bolts after all, though that's not exactly a safe level of electricity production.

 

[Mandy Onderwater]

I think what also helped, is that using copper in the garden can actually be beneficial on it's own anyway.

 

[Grandmother Goose]

I think what also helped, is that using copper in the garden can actually be beneficial on it's own anyway.

It can be useful as a rather effective fungicide, so there is that.

 

[Mandy Onderwater]

Exactly! Win-win!

 

[JP 1983]

Good stuff! I wrote about electroculture earlier (and got scoffed at by the unbelievers) but the physics is quite interesting.

More recently I watched a video by Arthur Ramthun, a civil/electrical engineer who has been interested with the electrical processes that invigorate plant growth. He demonstrated empirically, with the caveat that his sample size is probably too small, that plants demonstrate electrotropic behaviour, that is, plants grow in response to electromagnetic field lines and electric current naturally present in the earth-sky interface even in the absence of metal conductive wire to enhance their natural propensity to channel ground and atmospheric electricity. He demonstrates the voltages emitted by trees at different parts: trunk, branches, tips, as well as differences in polarity (-/+), etc. TECHNICAL (30 mins):



Electroculture works by enhancing the direct electrical interface between earth-sky. In fact, I think the best electroculture design would probably be a sailboat's lightning rod because the increased surface area greatly promotes electron passage to or from the air; a reverse design of umbrella-shaped copper wires under the soil would also improve the ground connection but be prone to corrosion. The copper coils used in Mark's experiment don't have the surface area to promote the kind of electron passage that a lightning rod would and I will guess the crop yields will be superior to the control but only barely (I noted in the drone shot that the Birdie's beds chosen for the experiment/control arms of Mark's study are slightly different dimensions and this too will impact the overall result of his experiment).

I would never attempt this experiment with aluminium, a metal you do not want in your garden! Copper, bronze, iron, steel should be the go-to (silver, gold and platinum are too expensive to try!)

 

[Berkeloid]

What's wrong with aluminium? A lot of garden trellises are made of it, and it's found naturally in some soils. A lot of cookware is also made of it, and while there was some concern in years gone by it could increase the risk of certain health problems, I recall hearing about a long term study that came out a few years ago showing they could not find any link between aluminium cookware and health issues. So it would seem to be a relatively harmless metal?

 

[JP 1983]

What's wrong with aluminium? A lot of garden trellises are made of it, and it's found naturally in some soils. A lot of cookware is also made of it, and while there was some concern in years gone by it could increase the risk of certain health problems, I recall hearing about a long term study that came out a few years ago showing they could not find any link between aluminium cookware and health issues. So it would seem to be a relatively harmless metal?

Probably because you haven't read Qian Niu's Neurotoxicity of Aluminium (Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology Vol. 1091; Singapore: Springer, 2018)

Aluminium does not exist in metallic form in nature; that form is 100% man-made. It only exists in mineral forms. Because metallic aluminium is not only unnatural but cytotoxic, I would never use it as cookware, cooking foil or as any unpainted metal product in my garden. Aluminium cations (Al 3+) will leach in the presence of any acid, including humic and fulvic acids found naturally in soil by bacterial action. Volcanic soils are naturally high in aluminium cations (the kinds that cause biological harm) because they are naturally acidic soils. Note that aluminium metal naturally encases itself in its oxide, Al2O3, which is destroyed on contact with acids and allows leaching of Al3+ metal cations.

As Niu notes, it is the aqueous cation Al 3+(aq), not necessarily aluminium salts or mineral compounds which is the primary cause of aluminium's negative effects on biology. For example, at pH 7.4 (blood pH is 7.35-7.45), Al3+ cation will bind to the iron transport protein transferrin, replacing the Fe3+ cation and being transported across the Blood-Brain Barrier directly into your neurons -- up to 81% of the aluminium in your body right now is bound to transferrin instead of iron Fe3+. Niu cites multiple studies (pp. 36-37) which demonstrate that the "red mark" you got on your arm from your last vaccine is actually aluminium-induced cellular apoptosis, and what's worse, is that your immunoreactive cells (e.g. lymphocytes) will actually absorb significant quantities of aluminium thus injected, travel the body and deposit the cytotoxic metal everywhere. Other studies (see Niu chapter 3, passim) amply show that neural plaques and neurofibrillary tangles in Alzheimer's patients have exceedingly high concentrations of aluminium (where as non-Alzheimer's brain plaques do not). Aluminium bioaccumulates; there are few known ways to chelate aluminium, especially from the brain, because the cation so easily hides in transferrin.

The chemist William Gies wrote over 100 years ago:

These studies have convinced me that the use in food of aluminum or any other aluminum compound is a dangerous practice. That the aluminum ion is very toxic is well known. That aluminized food yields soluble aluminum compounds to gastric juice (and stomach contents) has been demonstrated. That such soluble aluminum is in part absorbed and carried to all parts of the body by the blood can no longer be doubted. That the organism can “tolerate” such treatment without suffering harmful consequences has not been shown. It is believed that the facts in this paper will give emphasis to my conviction that aluminum should be excluded from food.

C. A. Shaw, (ch. 4 in Niu) wrote:

It is important to note at the outset that it is still widely held, by some in both the medical and lay communities, and that aluminum is both inert and harm-
less. This view is then elaborated to propose that any potential for aluminum CNS toxicity to occur has been “debunked,” to use a lay/journalistic term (see, e.g., Lidsky [84]), when in fact quite the opposite is the case.

And he goes on to lay out all that evidence in the subsequent paragraphs (especially section 4.3, Niu pp. 60-67 and literature cited there).

Yet we not only still foil our food, mix our salads in aluminium bowls and fry our bacon on aluminium pans, we inject 50-80 vaccines worth of toxic quantities of it directly into our bodies from age birth onwards and expect there to be no lasting, lifelong neurological damage as a result.

Madness.