[Terrapreta] Greetings

[adkarve]

Dear Kevin,
my contention is that soil micro-organisms degrade soil minerals, because
they themselves need the mineral ions as nutrients. The green plants evolved
a symbiotic relationship with the soil micro-organisms, wherein the green
plants feed the soil micro-organisms with organic matter in the form of
leaves, petals and also through organic matter dissolved in the water of
guttation that is exuded in the night by  the leaves. In any field, even in
fields which do not receive any fertilizer or manure, as in the case of
non-irrigated fields in India, the top 10 cm of the soil is the most fertile
zone of the soil. This is because it harbours by far the largest population
of microorganisms in the soil. This layer is well aerated and provided with
organic matter by the green plants growing in that field. The green plants,
even those growing in deserts, have a network of roots that penetrates the
top soil, in order to get the mineral ions in that layer. Therefore, one
should feed the micro-organisms in this layer, so that they make minerals
available to the green plants. Don't worry about nitrogen. Some of the
micro-organisms fix atmospheric nitrogen, which too becomes available to the
green plants. Some of them are free living, but a large number of them also
have a direct symbiotic relationship with plants. New species of N-fixing
symbionts are being discovered almost every year. When I studied botany, we
were taught only of Azotobacter and Rhizobium. But later organisms were
discovered with names like Frankiella, Azospirillum, Acetobacter,
Beijerinckia, etc. When the organic matter applied to the soil is exhausted,
the free living micro-organisms die and the mineral nutrients in their cells
become available to the green plants. The trick in this type of agriculture
is to apply relatively small quantities of high calorie, non-composted
organic material, at a frequency of about once every 2 months. The 125 kg
green leaves per ha that I recommend, has only 25 kg dry matter, of which
about 15 kg would comprise cellulose and lignin, and about 10 kg would be
proteinous. Green leaves have nitrogen, phosphate, potash, iron and all the
trace elements that the micro-organisms need. They thus multiply rapidly,
when fed with green leaves. There is nothing new in this recommendation.
Green manuring is known to  farmers. But farmers plant the entire area with
a green manuring crop and then plow it into the soil. This is too much
organic matter so that the farmer has to wait for almost a month, before he
can plant the next crop. In nature, the soil microbes never get such huge
quantities of organic matter at a time. Therefore, I recommend only 125 kg
of green leafy matter per ha. It can even be applied to a standing crop,
without causing any depletion of Nitrogen in the soil. This input causes the
micro-organisms to multiply rapidly, and as soon as the organic matter is
finished, the micro-organisms begin to die. The mineral elements in the dead
cells then become available to the green plants.
This method works in the field, provided the field is not water logged,
because the soil micro-organisms are mostly aerobic. The idea is not
acceptable to the science establishment, because there is still no direct
evidence that soil micro-organisms actually degrade soil minerals.
Yours
A.D.Karve

----- Original Message -----
From: Kevin Chisholm <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
To: adkarve <adkarve at pn2.vsnl.net.in>
Cc: <terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 7:46 PM
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Greetings


> Dear AD
>
> Wow!! With your different approach to Problem Solving, it is easy to see
> why you win Ashden Awards!!
>
> I an an ignorant amateur gardener, amazed by Mother Nature. I started
> off as a great fan of "Chemical Agriculture", as promoted by the
> multi-national fertilizer companies. Then I swung over to "Feed the
> Soil, and it will feed the Plant." One of the key beliefs in so-called
> "Organic Agriculture" is that one must compost the organic additions
> before adding to the soil, because if the "raw" organic material
> composts in place, it will rob Nitrogen from the plants.
>
> On the other hand, composting "in place" does end up with more "in place
> energy availability". The first question is: Is this potential energy
> available to the plant, or does it simply get consumed by the "in-place
> composting bacteria", with no direct benefit to the plant?
>
> The next question is: It there any way to prevent the "in-place
> composting process" from temporarily depleting the Nitrogen that would
> otherwise have been available for plant growth?
>
> One obvious solution to the Nitrogen Availability problem might be to
> ensure the raw materials had adequate Nitrogen to permit "self
> composting" ingredients to compost in-place, without the need for
> temporarily robbing Nitrogen from the plant. However, all that this
> might accomplish would be a "self fueled fire". The ingredients would
> have no need to interact with the Soil, and rob its nitrogen.
>
> On the other hand, your "Sugar Fertilizer" procedure seems to work
> wonderfully, and no Nitrogen is added to the Soil... only energy for the
> plants.
>
> Is it perhaps a case of "too much of a good thing is a bad thing?" One
> can see that too much cellulostic plant material with a high C/N ratio
> added to the soil could possibly deplete N from plants, but if a smaller
> amount was added, there might not be enough cellulose to deplete
> existing soil N to retard plant growth over the short term.
>
> So we seem to get back to the first question: Could you please explain
> how the release of energy from "in-place composting" is more beneficial
> to the "Soil Food Web" than would be the addition of the same material
> that was composted externally?
>
> Thanks!!
>
> Kevin Chisholm
>
> adkarve wrote:
> > Dear Juergen,
> > Do not apply compost to the soil.  On the one hand, agronomists tell us
to
> > apply organic matter to the soil in order to feed  the soil
micro-organisms,
> > but on the other hand, they ask us to compost the biomass before
applying it
> > to the soil. The nutritional value of the biomass is lost in the process
of
> > composting. Also, while recommending the dose of compost to be applied,
> > agronomists calculate it according to the N.P and K content of the
compost
> > and not according to the nutritional calories in the compost. We found
in
> > our experiments that non-composted green leaves, applied at the rate of
125
> > kg per ha, once every 2 to 3 months, gives as high yield from crops as
> > application of recommended doses of chemical fertilizers.  Even in the
case
> > of dung, we found that relatively small quantities of dung are highly
> > effective, if the dung is applied in the raw and non-composted form.
Dung
> > consists partly of lignin (which can be digested neither by herbivorous
> > animals nor by the anaerobic bacteria in their guts) and partly of a
large
> > number of bacteria. Both the lignin and the dung bacteria serve as food
for
> > the soil bacteria. By composting dung, we unnecessarily rob the soil
> > micro-organisms of nutrition.
> > Yours
> > A.D.Karve
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Juergen Botz <jurgen at botz.org>
> > To: <terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 5:45 PM
> > Subject: [Terrapreta] Greetings
> >
> >
> >> Hello, all.  I just joined the list, glad to see it so lively!
> >>
> >> To introduce myself... about a year ago I acquired a small farm
> >> in coastal Bahia, Brazil.
> >>
> >> The land is 2/3 secondary growth Atlantic rain forest, the other
> >> 1/3 is partially planted with coconut palms and pineapple, plus
> >> various fruits and plenty of manioca.  Unplanted areas that
> >> aren't forest are heavily overgrown with dense brush.  The
> >> subsoil is nutrient-poor loam, often highly compacted.  In most
> >> spots there's a layer of anywhere from an inch to a foot that
> >> has a significant amount of organic matter, and yes, quite a bit
> >> of charcoal.
> >>
> >> The charcoal doesn't seem to have been deliberately incorporated...
> >> rather, the area has been cleared by fire a couple of times in
> >> the past and because of the high humidity here that leaves a
> >> lot of charred matter.
> >>
> >> I am experimenting with various natural farming and permaculture
> >> techniques here, and my main goal right now is to get the soil
> >> in better shape.  That means breaking up the compacted subsoil,
> >> adding organic matter, adding more charcoal to stabilize it and
> >> reduce future compaction, planting various leguminous trees and
> >> ground covers, and of course building up a layer of humus.
> >>
> >> I have a source of humus and wood for charcoal in the forest.
> >> I've also been making large quantities of compost from a mixture
> >> of wood- chips, manure, and seaweeds raked up at the beach.  I'm
> >> thinking of adding charcoal to this mix right from the start of
> >> composting.
> >>
> >> One of the things that led me to this list was that I was
> >> scouring the Net for info on small-scale charcoal production.
> >> I found a bunch, and I found this list.  I think I'll be trying
> >> some pit-kiln variation shortly, and in the longer run I may
> >> build something like the adam retort.
> >>
> >> :j
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Terrapreta mailing list
> >> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> >>
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Terrapreta mailing list
> > Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
> >
> >
>