[Terrapreta] Terrapreta Digest, Vol 4, Issue 61
Randy Black
rblack at hillcity.k12.sd.us
Fri Apr 20 12:15:06 CDT 2007
Sean,
Didn't have time to reply to all of you post (a guy's got to work
sometime!). From my readings and knowledge of organic chemistry some
(but not all), of the increased CEC comes from the physical properties
of carbon. Carbon with its 4 bonds likes to make long chain compounds
and break long chain compounds. What this means is that there is a lot
of ion/nutrient movement in Terra Preta soils as they respond to
microbial activity, heat, water, plant requirements, and probably a lot
of other activity in the soil. It is thought that humus with its long
chain carbon compounds does the same as charcoal/carbon and increases
the CEC of soil, most likely by the same making and breaking of long
chain carbon compounds. One interesting fact I read was the there are
more carbon compounds than all the rest of the elements combined!
What has become very evident in all my readings on Terra Preta and soil
is that we are dealing with a very complex system that not only has
primary effects but secondary, third, fourth and more effects, as the
soil lives, breaths, eats, secretes, warms, cools, dries, gets wet, etc.
Most of us try and look at one variable at a time but when dealing with
Terra Preta soil systems I don't think we can do that.
Randy Black
-----Original Message-----
From: terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org
[mailto:terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of
terrapreta-request at bioenergylists.org
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 10:22 AM
To: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
Subject: Terrapreta Digest, Vol 4, Issue 61
Send Terrapreta mailing list submissions to
terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
terrapreta-request at bioenergylists.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
terrapreta-owner at bioenergylists.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Terrapreta digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Charcoal mix continued (Sean K. Barry)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 11:22:01 -0500
From: "Sean K. Barry" <sean.barry at juno.com>
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Charcoal mix continued
To: <terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>, "Randy Black"
<rblack at hillcity.k12.sd.us>
Message-ID: <AABDCT4ENAPVR4KJ at smtp02.nyc.untd.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Hi Randy,
I do not think the carbon in charcoal that is put into soil provides any
kind of nutrient for plants above the ground or soil microorganisms.
Charcoal is a lattice for soil microorganisms. There may be some
decomposable hydrocarbon strings (volatile matter) left in fresh
charcoal which microbes can get energy from by decomposing (into CO2 and
H2O), but char is not a nutrient to plants. Plants get the carbon they
use, strictly from the inspiration of CO2 from the atmosphere. Carbon
does not form soluble ions in water. Plants cannot take carbon in
through their roots.
Also, Terra Preta soils do contain other organic nutrient bearing stuff,
like fish bones (which contain phosphorus and calcium) and plant wastes
(the inedible parts of food crops), but it was not charred (not burned
either). It was just added into the soil along with charcoal. Cation
Exchange Capacity is enhanced in Terra Preta soils. Some think it has
more to do with more neutral soil pH and pH buffer capability in TP
soils. I don't know enough to say why or how it is increased. Maybe
Christoph Steiner, Johannes Lehman, or Janice Thies (<- soil scientists)
could shed more light on that issue.
SKB
----- Original Message -----
From: Randy Black<mailto:rblack at hillcity.k12.sd.us>
To:
terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 10:13 AM
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Charcoal mix continued
Sean,
You have a very good point " I think, rather, that Terra Preta soil is
an ecology of soil, a habitat in the soil, that promotes improved
health
of soil microorganisms. The improved soil microbiological activity
then
improves the soil habitat for plants which grow above the soil and
root
into it."
What also needs to be added to make Terra Preta is large amounts of
non-wood organic matter (grass, leaves, vegetable waste, and manure),
and I believe that some of that has to be charred or partially
charred.
The reason for this is that it provides food and resources for the
microbes and I believe that if some of it is charred across the
combustion continuum from partial char to charcoal some very
interesting
chemistry takes place making some very interesting food for microbes.
How the microbes use this partial char and what microbes would use it
is
what I feel is the secret of Terra Preta. What we do know is that the
Amazonian Indians charred up lots of different material including a
lot
of fish wastes (noted in literature), and there is something in
charred
organic matter that microbes really like.
One thing I am interested in is the role of humus in Terra Preta. It
is
some cyclic process where the charcoal helps the microbes which in
turn
process the organic matter which in turn leads to humus formation
which
in turn increases the CEC and mineral availability in the soil which
leads to increased microbial activity which starts the process over.
What we do know is that charcoal/organic matter is the start to create
Terra Preta.
Randy Black
From:
terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org<mailto:terrapreta-bounces at bioenerg
ylists.org>
[mailto:terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of
terrapreta-request at bioenergylists.org<mailto:terrapreta-request at bioenerg
ylists.org>
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 1:14 AM
To:
terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
Subject: Terrapreta Digest, Vol 4, Issue 54
Send Terrapreta mailing list submissions to
terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
<http://bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/terrapreta_bioenergylists.or
g>
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
terrapreta-request at bioenergylists.org<mailto:terrapreta-request at bioenerg
ylists.org>
You can reach the person managing the list at
terrapreta-owner at bioenergylists.org<mailto:terrapreta-owner at bioenergylis
ts.org>
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Terrapreta digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Charcoal mix continued (Sean K. Barry)
2. Re: Part II comments on John Cowan's "thoughts" (Michael Bailes)
3. Re: some thoughts about Terra Preta (Sean K. Barry)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 01:17:40 -0500
From: "Sean K. Barry"
<sean.barry at juno.com<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com>>
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Charcoal mix continued
To:
<terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>>,
"Michael N Trevor"
<mtrevor at ntamar.net<mailto:mtrevor at ntamar.net>>
Message-ID:
<AABDCSYZHAPR5YRA at smtp01.nyc.untd.com<mailto:AABDCSYZHAPR5YRA at smtp01.nyc
.untd.com>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Michael,
Christoph Steiner mentioned, on reading the comment about 30% density
of
charcoal in Terra Preta soil that he thought that number was high
(maybe
even quite high). I have never actually measured charcoal content in
any soil, let alone Amazon Terra Preta soil. He has. I think we
should
take heed of his first hand experience with the actual Terra Preta
soil
in the actual places where it was discovered. By his reference, I
would
consider it a given that charcoal is not nearly as dense as 30% in any
known Terra Preta soils. I do think Christoph would agree that the
charcoal found in some examples of Terra Preta soil exists in quite
deep
layers (up to 5 feet?) and that it probably was laid down in those
areas
slowly over quite a long period of time.
I do not believe, either, that density of charcoal alone is a defining
issue as to what makes Terra Preta soil a much better plant growing
medium than surrounding soils. I think, rather, that Terra Preta soil
is an ecology of soil, a habitat in the soil, that promotes improved
health of soil microorganisms. The improved soil microbiological
activity then improves the soil habitat for plants which grow above
the
soil and root into it.
The significant improvement of food crops grown in Terra Preta soils
versus surrounding oxisol native soils in the Amazon rainforest, may
also be related to the substantial defiicit that those native soils
present for food crops. Even a normal bloom in a desert would be
measured as outstanding one by anyone familiar with what can and does
normally grow in a desert.
SKB
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael N
Trevor<mailto:mtrevor at ntamar.net<mailto:mtrevor at ntamar.net>>
To:
terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailt
o:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org%3Cmailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>>
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 9:38 PM
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Charcoal mix continued
Dear Sean
Thanks for the addition feed back and information. So in human terms
charcoal addition is partially permanent, being long term
and persistent. I like your comment, its presence being like a
catalyst in as what ever it does it seems to remain..
If it has built up to 30% in some places over thousands of years
then
the actually beneficial amount needed in short term
must actually be pretty small. If my reasoning is not wrong and we
get
30 % for 3000 years, then doses like 10 and 20 percent
should be pretty high up on the scale since even amounts like.03
percent per year might have accumulative effects over time.
Regards,
Michael
_______________________________________________
Terrapreta mailing list
Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
<http://bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/terrapreta_bioenergylists.or
g>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
/pipermail/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org/attachments/20070420/80e3da07/a
ttachment-0001.html
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:38:55 +1000
From: "Michael Bailes"
<michaelangelica at gmail.com<mailto:michaelangelica at gmail.com>>
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Part II comments on John Cowan's "thoughts"
To: "Ron Larson"
<rongretlarson at comcast.net<mailto:rongretlarson at comcast.net>>
Cc:
terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
Message-ID:
<7dcba7be0704192338y28826e38o504bce1fcd5b0acd at mail.gmail.com<mailto:7dcb
a7be0704192338y28826e38o504bce1fcd5b0acd at mail.gmail.com>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
John Cowan said:
>
> Here is another idea worth pondering - "magic coal" made by pressure
> cooking biomass. It avoids certain problems with making charcoal but
has
> some new issues to overcome.
>
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2071791,00.html<http://www.dw-w
orld.de/dw/article/0,2144,2071791,00.html>
>
> a. Like John, I found this new and very interesting. By scouting
around
> for more on the subject, I also found
>
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Translate:MPG:Coal_from_Biomass<http://pesw
iki.com/index.php/Translate:MPG:Coal_from_Biomass>
>
> b. Some more observations:
>
> 1. I see the use of the word "coal" here ? as we did with
"charcoal"
> >> "coal" in Russian
>
> b. This "coal" is described as being brown.
>
> 4. Anyone (hoping especially to hear from Mike Antal) able to shed
more
> light on more details? (There are some references that look worth
tracking
> down, but no time yet to do that.)
>
> Ron
>
Are not Leonardite, and Australian Organic Humate, both a form of
"coal"
Has anyone used any of these products on their soil?
Anyone know much about the role of humates in the soil?
SEE
http://www.australianhumates.com/index2.asp?go=the_story.html<http://www
.australianhumates.com/index2.asp?go=the_story.html>
and
http://www.maddingleyminerals.com.au/html/what_is_humic_acid.html<http:/
/www.maddingleyminerals.com.au/html/what_is_humic_acid.html>
--
Michael B
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
/pipermail/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org/attachments/20070420/b01d0e19/a
ttachment-0001.html
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 02:13:56 -0500
From: "Sean K. Barry"
<sean.barry at juno.com<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com>>
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] some thoughts about Terra Preta
To:
<terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>>,
"John Cowan"
<johncowan at earthlink.net<mailto:johncowan at earthlink.net>>
Message-ID:
<AABDCS4AYAZR4QD2 at smtp02.nyc.untd.com<mailto:AABDCS4AYAZR4QD2 at smtp02.nyc
.untd.com>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Hi John,
When you consider that the bulk of biomass is hydrocarbons, then
increased plant growth (biomass growth) equates to increased CO2
uptake.
Plants do not get carbon from any source but the atmosphere (inspired
CO2).
Using fossil fuel as the standard for lowest cost energy source today
(it is, ask an oil company executive , or a coal mine operator), then
there is an obvious cost for BTUs/kwH/horsepower of energy (like
$2.55/gall for gasoline @ ~125,000 BTU). The cost to bring this
@$2.55
gallon of gasoline includes raw material (petroleum crude),
transportation (oil tanker shipping, tanker truck), production
(refining
crude into gasoline), distribution (gas station marketing), credit
management (your gas station credit card), and greed (ENRON). It does
not directly include costs like security (the war Dubyah started in
Iraq
and the consequent taxes your grandchildren's grandchildren will be
paying for that), hurricane Katrina (ferocity and frequency caused by
global warming, not to mention is effects on the costs of operating
the
USA's largest and nearly only petroleum refining sites in the world),
third world drought, famine, and starvation, which the first world
feels
compelled to pay
for (and well they should, since it is our activities which effect
world climate and are in part causing it), and etc (the world is going
to hell in a hand basket because of our current energy economy). I'll
stop the diatribe. The point is, the price paid for using carbon
emitting fossil fuels does not even begin to accommodate the true cost
of using them.
This is recognized by many who do not have a direct financial stake in
selling fossil fuels. It is ignored by those who do. What the Kyoto
Protocol tried to do, and is doing in other parts of the world, is cap
the level emissions of carbon to the atmosphere by enacting
legislation
which would impose a fine, or a fee, or a tax, on economic entities
which produced net positive carbon dioxide emissions into the
atmosphere. Also enacted, these carbon polluters could trade for
carbon
credits (offsetting their CO2 emissions fees) with entities which
could
show a net carbon negative system, a sink. These are not government
subsides, these are not taxes on populations. These were fees and
credits transacted between entities which either produce CO2 emissions
or sink carbon.
Too be sure, these would represent immediate costs to entities who
produce CO2 emissions and who could not find credits for the sinking
of
carbon by others. Too be sure, if CO2 polluters had to sink enough
carbon to equate with their own emissions, they would endure costs.
Greed caused powerful business interests from big CO2 polluters (oil,
coal, and automotive industries) to run their screaming US
congressional
lobbyists to Washington DC, to scare the bejezzus out the the US
congress by telling them that "Well, we will JUST HAVE to pass these
costs on to the American public." "Your constituents will blame you
for
doing this to them and not re-elect you!"
But, in places like Australia, where they did sign on to the Kyoto
protocol, "carbon cap and trade" is big business now. In 2005, carbon
trading was a $100 BILLION business just that year. By 2012, it is
estimated to be $500 billion, in Australia alone. That does not
represent government subsidy in any way shape or form. It is
potentially huge government revenue (business income taxes). It
represent enormous new business growth (carbon sequestration
businesses
selling credits).
It is currently very easy to take local agricultural waste (free raw
material, no transportation, no very high tech refineries) and turn it
into economically produced locally usable energy (electricity). It is
also entirely doable to make biomass into liquid transportation fuels
(ethanol and synthetic diesel are already being made from biomass).
Additionally, all of this can be cone with biomass and at the same
time,
carbon can be removed from the atmosphere and put into a very long
term
sink (charcoal in soil). Doing this can increase plant growth in
those
soils, and consequently increase CO2 uptake by those fields. Doing
this
can make soils which require less or even NO application of industrial
chemical fertilizer (the production of fertilizer, incidentally, is
the
second largest user of fossil fuels in the USA, after transportation).
BIOMASS processing = cheaper ENERGY + more productive AGRICULTURE
soils
- atmospheric CARBON.
SKB
----- Original Message -----
From: John
Cowan<mailto:johncowan at earthlink.net<mailto:johncowan at earthlink.net>>
To:
terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailt
o:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org%3Cmailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>>
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 10:08 PM
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] some thoughts about Terra Preta
Hi Sean,
I don't understand your line of questioning. How would I measure the
carbon dioxide uptake? In some kind of artificial lab chamber? In the
open environment it would be very difficult to measure. You could do a
dry weight measure of the whole plant but what about exudates to the
soil and microbes [10-50% of photosynthate]. Have you measured the CO2
uptake?
I have read a large portion of the hard and web-based literature on
terra preta and the use of charcoal in the soil. Your biomass
production
scheme is pretty standard fare for biomass energy production/carbon
sequestration. If you can figure out a way to make it economically
work
that would be great. Onsite electric generation might by one way.
Personally, I like bamboo as a biomass crop but it depends on various
circumstances.
I do have to question the concept of government payments for carbon
credits. Subsidies do not represent a true economy. The fact that
payments are made does not reflect that this is indeed solving or
going
to solve the world climate crisis. Positive alternatives do not
necessarily lead to change. Think about the medical field. The driving
force is not the positive alternatives that are out there but instead
it
is the system already in place that has its own economic interest and
paradigm. Thats not to say that change won't happen just probably not
in
a nice linear fashion.
John Cowan
Sean K. Barry wrote:
Hi John Cowan,
Welcome to our discussions. Have you ever attempted to measure
the
effect on carbon dioxide uptake there is by plants that show increased
growth, due to enhancement of the soil under them with even a small
amount of charcoal (say 5% in the top 15cm)?
What if charcoal was put into soil that was used to grow and
energy
crop, like Salix (fast growing willow), or sugar cane, or switch
grass?
Those crops could be harvested annually, or coppiced every three years
(Salix), the biomass used to produce carbon neutral fuels (like
ethanol,
methanol, or synthetic diesel) and/or carbon neutral electric power.
If only part of the biomass energy was used for fuel and the rest
left in charcoal, then that charcoal could be used to make another
field
of an energy crop grow faster and bigger, increasing it's uptake of
atmospheric CO2 and its yield of energy. It would also make the
energy
originally harvested for use into CARBON NEGATIVE energy.
There are areas of the planet, countries and governments even, who
have pulled their heads out of their donkey's and they have enacted a
"carbon cap and trade system" to provide an economic incentive to
reduce
CO2 emissions. I believe that charcoal production from biomass and
the
consequent gains in biomass yield (CO2 uptake), along with a worldwide
market for carbon trading, can change our worldwide energy economy
over
to one which is carbon negative. In the current state of the world, I
believe there are better economic incentives in harvesting carbon
negative energy, than there are in harvesting carbon neutral energy.
Charcoal in soil will enhance the productivity of both.
Regards,
Sean K. Barry
Principal Engineer/Owner
Troposphere Energy, LLC
11170 142nd St. N.
Stillwater, MN 55082
(651) 351-0711 (Home/Fax)
(651) 285-0904 (Cell)
sean.barry at juno.com<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com<mailto:sean.barry at juno.co
m%3Cmailto:sean.barry at juno.com>>
----- Original Message -----
From: John
Cowan<mailto:johncowan at earthlink.net<mailto:johncowan at earthlink.net>>
To:
terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailt
o:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org%3Cmailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>>
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 6:40 PM
Subject: [Terrapreta] some thoughts about Terra Preta
After monitoring this group for a month, I am both encouraged
and
disheartened by the messages submitted by others.
First off, Terra Preta is about adding charcoal and other
organic-derived nutrients to the soil. The spinoffs of somehow
saving
the earth from runaway carbon dioxide by dreaming of massive
charcoal
production and soil incorporation are just a bit unrealistic
when
you
consider the scope of the problem, the complexity and who
controls
the
infrastructure resources of the planet to make such a program
possible.
After years of doing my own organic growing research, I would
say
that
from my experiments done last year that the use of charcoal in
specific
ways can be a very powerful tool for improving the physical,
chemical,
colloidal properties of the soil.and microbiological ecology.
One of the big reasons that charcoal is so beneficial to worn
out
tropical soils is that the colloidal nature of the soil is
changed
so
that it can hold on to cations in a way similar to most
temperate
soils.
Check out mellitic acid and its variants. Google for "Soil: Our
Interface with the Environment" by Bruce Johnson. This explains
the CEC
transformation.
The most important issue about improving the soil for plant
growth
is
the microbiology. Charcoal provides all sorts of factors
favorable
to
beneficial microbes. Everyone needs to know about mycorrhizia
and
the
exudates they produce. Also about the nitrogen fixers like
rhizobia,
azosprillium and azotobacter who need excellent soil structure
to
perform. Think about the living process of granule formation and
crumb
structure. These are the true marks of progress to a healthy
soil.
This leads me to the crazy notions about adjusting soil pH like
we
are
adjusting the air/fuel mixture on a carburetor. Applying large
amounts
of sulfur, chemical nitrogen or various limes to move the pH
down
or up
has many problems - nutrient imbalances, microbe die out,
toxicity
to
name a few. Yes, it is espoused by ag and hort experts as
important and
pragmatic. Consider the source and what other sterling advise
they
give out.
The biggest problem with charcoal is how to make it efficiently
on
a
small scale with local materials. I don't have any good answers
yet.
Some of the work in India looks good but requires lots of time
to
manage
the process. Like Sean said high tech retorts aren't cheap. Plus
you
have to be in an area where such a process is legal to do.
So far I have used Cowboy lump charcoal ground to a powder, more
or
less, with an old meat grinder and/or an electric coffee mill.
Don't
laugh. It works for a few pounds. I have cultured the charcoal
with my
own high quality worm castings, about 50/50, plus a small amount
[3-5%
vol.] of soluble fish powder [or krill meal] plus a little rock
phosphate. I've use a very small amount [ maybe a couple of
heaping
TBS.] of this on problem plants in pots or as a test on a few
plants in
the veggie garden with positive results that were very obvious.
And,
yes, I've used these materials separately without these results.
It is
not a raw nutrient effect. This was all surface applied and
watered in.
I've also played around with potting soil tests and found the
charcoal
to be too much at 5-10% compared to controls. A coarser charcoal
might
be different but seems a waste [expensive] unless you have lots
of
charcoal at hand. For potting soil there are lots of other
granular
materials to increase porosity.
Here is another idea worth pondering - "magic coal" made by
pressure
cooking biomass. It avoids certain problems with making charcoal
but has
some new issues to overcome.
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2071791,00.html<http://www.dw-w
<http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2071791,00.html%3Chttp://www.d
w-w>
orld.de/dw/article/0,2144,2071791,00.html>
If anything I have said is worth discussing publicly or
privately,
please have at it.
John Cowan
_______________________________________________
Terrapreta mailing list
Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailt
o:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org%3Cmailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>>
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
<http://bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/terrapreta_bioenergylists.or
g>
<http://bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/terrapreta_bioenergylists.or
<http://bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/terrapreta_bioenergylists.or
>
g>
_______________________________________________
Terrapreta mailing list
Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
<http://bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/terrapreta_bioenergylists.or
g>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
/pipermail/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org/attachments/20070420/0b7fc4f0/a
ttachment.html
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Terrapreta mailing list
Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
<http://bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/terrapreta_bioenergylists.or
g>
End of Terrapreta Digest, Vol 4, Issue 54
*****************************************
_______________________________________________
Terrapreta mailing list
Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
<http://bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/terrapreta_bioenergylists.or
g>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
/pipermail/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org/attachments/20070420/2ce3f37d/a
ttachment.html
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Terrapreta mailing list
Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
End of Terrapreta Digest, Vol 4, Issue 61
*****************************************
More information about the Terrapreta
mailing list