Dehydrated Poo Tube equals heavier pack?

[shazcol]

If you take dehydrated food on a walk, use a 'Poo Tube' to carry out your waste, does your pack get heavier as you go along?

Dehydrated food is re-hydrated back to near it's original weight before consumption. We humans then eat it and being quite inefficient compared to some other animals we do not remove all the goodness from it. Then we pass it through and capture the solids in our 'Poo Tube' in a more hydrated (heavier) state than it was in our pack (less what the body has taken out). Hence does your pack get heavier as you continue with your walk and be heaviest at the end?

Can we work out how efficient a human is by weighing everything?

Do we need to invent a dehydrating 'Poo Tube' to over come this problem?

I am interested if we have it completely wrong and to hear a few theories on this one.....

PWS Poo Tube - Pine Valley Hut

PooTube.jpg (92.2 KiB) Viewed 12034 times

Regardless a 'Poo Tube' is a really good idea in sensitive areas if we want them not to become contaminated by our love of visiting them. Lake Rhona immediately springs to mind.

[frenchy_84]

Do we need to invent a dehydrating 'Poo Tube' to over come this problem?

No. Apart from a few OCD gram counters in the light weight forum, who would probably prefer to eat it again so as to get the most value out of their food, the rest of us can harden up and carry a little bit more weight.

[sthughes]

the rest of us can harden up and carry a little bit more weight.

Imodium might do the trick

[wander]

Now there is an interesting experiment. I'll try and remember next poo tube trip.

[Nuts]

Do we need to invent a dehydrating 'Poo Tube' to over come this problem?

No. Apart from a few OCD gram counters in the light weight forum, who would probably prefer to eat it again so as to get the most value out of their food, the rest of us can harden up and carry a little bit more weight.

Some sort of dehydrating mini dunny would be nice... to those (majority) who have never been into bushwalking 'What sort of weirdo puts their poo in a tube then carrys it with them all day'? I guess there are different stages of madness

[jez_au]

fascinating discussion, I hope we can get some answers (sorry tricked ya nothing to actually contribute)

[Liamy77]

i thought the theory was to emty the tube occasionally at dunnies to keep the weight down.... ok if you're near a loo every now n then....

weighing before n after - isn't that being a bit ... anal?!

sorry about the crap joke

[Swifty]

To answer your question: not quite sure, best way for you to find out is to perform the experiment yourself.
Noting that #2 is not the only way the body disposes of consumed food. Apart from #1, there is also sweat and breathing out CO2.

[shazcol]

Interesting discussion so far. If you Google how to build them and supplies there are many hits for all manner of environmentally friendly bags and corn starch things to accessorise your tube. You can even get the teeshirt http://www.zazzle.com/poo_tube_tshirt-2 ... 6528372051 . This could become the way of the future if the growth in people getting out there continues?

Liam77 - you cracked us both up with your post. We expected a few more like that.

[sailfish]

Do we need to invent a dehydrating 'Poo Tube' to over come this problem?

No. Apart from a few OCD gram counters in the light weight forum, who would probably prefer to eat it again so as to get the most value out of their food, the rest of us can harden up and carry a little bit more weight.

Some sort of dehydrating mini dunny would be nice... to those (majority) who have never been into bushwalking 'What sort of weirdo puts their poo in a tube then carrys it with them all day'? I guess there are different stages of madness

Hmm Just to add to this wierdo discussion, remembering physics, add a vaccume pump......
Recycling anyone?

Ken

[stu]

Metolius (climbing gear company) do something along these lines for long Big Wall routes:

http://www.metoliusclimbing.com/waste_case.html

Could be adapted to bushwalking as well?

[Ticklebelly]

I found this info while researching biodegradable bags for use in a poo tube. http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resou ... tA4-a7.pdf

Seems relevant to the current discussion although it does not provide any info on the ratio of weight in (to the human) to weight out (and into the poo tube). I figure the volume in is greater than volume out and most of that reduction is in the processes of digestion that leech water from the food. The water taken from the solid food is then dissipated as urine or sweat. Notice that the link I posted is to a Human Waste Management Strategy. I think it would be reasonable to ask the authors for info on how much a poo tube weighs at walk end in comparison to how much went past the chompers of the person who provided the tube contents. I would also like some specific statement on what to do with pee. Seems pedantic perhaps but the article discusses waste problems in very cold environments and although a wise inuit does not eat yellow snow, I would have greater confidence in proposed strategies if I knew that all areas of waste issues had been covered. Same same with feminine hygine products although a simple statement like "wrap separately and dispose of separately" would probably be enough. If the authorities want to encourage the voluntary practice of carry in, carry out, then they should also tell us if it is OK to drop corn starch wrapped human scat in composting toilets, for example. What about septic?

Some interesting info on human waste management on long haul flights where no toilet is provided (been there, done that) and NASA has some disgusting info on space poo but that kind of stuff is less useful here because space flight, for example, assumes a closed system and weight (of food and water) is conserved.

Ticklebelly

[ULWalkingPhil]

What next? Carry our own oxygen tanks so we don't breath the air. More damage is being done to the earth with all the resources being used the way it is, I'm sure a bit of crap is not going to heart the earth if we bury.

[sailfish]

What next? Carry our own oxygen tanks so we don't breath the air. More damage is being done to the earth with all the resources being used the way it is, I'm sure a bit of crap is not going to heart the earth if we bury.

Yes, but there is a buck or two to be made in this enviro stuff......
Enter the marketing team!

Ken

[tasadam]

What next? Carry our own oxygen tanks so we don't breath the air. More damage is being done to the earth with all the resources being used the way it is, I'm sure a bit of crap is not going to heart the earth if we bury.

Dare I enter this crappy discussion...

OK... Try finding somewhere to dig in the Labyrinth in winter... I carried out, for the first time mind you.

[shazcol]

What next? I'm sure a bit of crap is not going to heart the earth if we bury.

Unfortunately this is not always the case at altitude, in cold wet area and particularly when in heavy snow. Concentrated burying activity and sometimes poor practices leads to faecal contamination of nearby waterways and having to boil all water to be safe to drink. Hardly a pristine environment if that has to happen?

[Liamy77]

the cold prevents bacteria from breaking it down as fast as usual causing it to build up too... (probably stating the obvious here, but just in case...)

[walkinTas]

... I'm sure a bit of crap is not going to heart [hurt] the earth if we bury.

You need to do a little reading on this subject. Just search these forums for a start. There are a number of links to very good Tasmanian research that will show you exactly what the problems are. For starters, waste products and papers take "years" to break down in alpine soils and they increase chemical levels (fertilizers if you like) to levels that native alpine plants can't tolerate. When there is a concentrated population of walkers in a given area (because they all follow the same track), this exasperates the problems. So yes, you end up hurting the earth.

<rant>Conservation reserves and National Parks are not primarily about humans enjoying nature - that is the secondary benefit. The primary reason is to protect the biodiversity. Protect the plants and animals that live there. If our going there, and our actions when we get there, minify the biodiversity, then we tend to nullify the whole purpose of the park or reserve. Then, when we (and the generations that follow) do go there to enjoy nature, there is less to enjoy. All of this is aside from the degradation of aesthetics, the assault on olfactory perception and the pure contradiction of term resulting from using pristine wilderness as a latrine. </rant>

[pazzar]

There is some interesting literature out there about alternative techniques, and the science behind it all. A Tasmanian professor has undertaken years of work testing the effect of waste burial in different soil types in the state which is well worth a read, and I read an interesting thesis this morning on the effect of poo in water catchment areas. The results did surprise me a little. You can find it all by Googling 'Human Waste Management in Tasmania's National Parks'. The study I read this morning was a US based report. Just Google 'Wildland Recreation and Human Waste' and you will find the papers. They are well worth the read. I am currently undertaking an assignment that looks at different waste management techniques, particularly focusing the study at Lake Rhona.

As for heavier weight, I'm not sure, but at the end of the day, in sensitive areas I think it is best to put up with the weight and carry it out. It is not just our health that will benefit from this, but the aesthetic pleasure will be increased by not having to dodge piles of faeces.