[Terrapreta] John Cowan's comments
Tom Miles
tmiles at trmiles.com
Sun Apr 22 02:41:23 CDT 2007
See: http://crab.rutgers.edu/~bucking/research.htm
Linked at: http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/?q=buckingresearch
Tom Miles
From: terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org
[mailto:terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of adkarve
Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2007 9:49 PM
To: Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] John Cowan's comments
Dear Sean,
If you want me to name the elements, I would say that all the elements
required by plants, except for Nitrogen, carbon, oxygen and hydrogen, are
derived from minerals in the soil. They have to be in the form of water
soluble ions for plants to absorb them. I do not know specifically which
ions. There are incidents of inorganic ions being made available to plants
by micro-organisms. Phosphate solubilizing bacteria make phosphate bound to
calcium available to plants. The thiobacilli oxidise sulphide containing
minerals into sulphates, making the sulphate ion available to the plants.
Calcium comes from Calcium carbonate, bicarbonate or phosphate. You cannot
deny the possibility that other elements, like potash, iron, zink, boron,
molybdenum, silicon, etc. are made available to plants through the action of
some, so far undiscovered, micro-organisms. I too do not believe in
transmutation of elements. Some time ago, during discussions with biodynamic
agriculturists, I heard a claim that bacteria or plants converted calcium
in the soil into magnesium. As evidence they claimed that plants grown under
biodynamic agculture in a soil deficient of magnesium grew normally and
showed the presence of magnesium, whereas plants grown in a the control plot
showed magnesium deficiency. I consider this not as evidence of
transmutation of elements, but as evidence that micro-organisms in the
biodynamic plots converted magnesium containing minerals into water soluble
magnesium ions, which then became available to plants. The mineral dolomite
is a mixture of calcium carbonate and magensium carbonate. Organic acids can
solubilize such rocks to make calcium as well as magnesium available to
plants.
Yours
A.D.Karve
----- Original Message -----
From: Sean K. Barry <mailto:sean.barry at juno.com>
To: Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org ; adkarve <mailto:adkarve at pn2.vsnl.net.in>
Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2007 9:21 PM
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] John Cowan's comments
Dear Dr. Karve,
You refuse to give me a direct answer to my question at the top of my
previous E-MAIL.
"Specifically what are the "minerals" that you say soil microorganisms get
from soil?"
I can rephrase is again. What is the exact chemical composition of the ions
that you say microorganisms decompose from soil to deliver to plants? What
are the atomic elements constituting the ionic molecules or ionic atoms? As
I suggested before, I agree with you that enhancing the health and size of a
microorganism population in soil will enhance the growth of plants above
that soil, because microorganism do decompose plant nutrients from more
complex organic molecules contained in soil. But, the chemical elements
involved in the released ions are organic (N, P, K, S, Ca, Fe). They are
specifically not inorganic, insoluble "minerals", which are made into
soluble plant nutrients (organic chemicals).
I will vehemently contest with you whether microorganisms decompose
Silicon-Si or silicate minerals (e.g. SiO2-quartz sand), Aluminum-Al or
aluminium phyllosilicate (clay), Thorium, Azurite, Bauxite, Cuprite,
Dolomite, Gold, Radon (a gas), Uranium, or significant amounts of any of the
hundreds of other inorganic minerals, and break off any organic plant
nutrient ions from those minerals. Microorganisms cannot perform atomic
operations. They cannot convert atoms of one element into atoms of other
elements. Atomic transformations only occur at very very high energy levels
via nuclear reactions, not at soil temperatures via biochemical operations,
but at plasma temperatures, like in the core of a star or inside the
implosion of a supernova (again via nuclear operations, which microorganism
cannot perform).
Please answer the direct question. What "minerals" do you say soil
microorganisms decompose into what ions, that they make available to plants?
The exact chemical composition, please?
Regards,
SKB
----- Original Message -----
From: adkarve <mailto:adkarve at pn2.vsnl.net.in>
To: Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2007 5:55 AM
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] John Cowan's comments
Dear Sean,
Agronomists in India have had to accept the view that plants take up
mineral nutrients from the soil, even when these are not applied from
outside. They call this phenomenon soil mining. Agriculture without using
any manure or chemical fertilizers is practised in non-irrigated areas in
peninsular India. The farmers who depend solely on rainfall, do not use any
inputs apart from the seed and the labour of their own family members and of
their own oxen. Applying inputs on which they have to spend money is a
gamble, because if the rains were to fail, they lose everything. They have
been doing this sort of farming for centuries. A study of the inputs and
outputs of these farms clearly shows, that the plants must be mining the
soil, because there are no inputs worth the name. The practice of using very
small quantities of non-composted, high calorie organic matter as manure is
now at least a decade old. Several thousand farmers follow this practice. A
comparison of their inputs and outputs shows that the plants in their fields
must also be mining the soil. An analysis of the soils from such farms
always shows that the soils are deficient of N and P. And yet they get high
yield, sometimes even higher than their neighbours who use chemical
fertilizers. Confronted by such data, I came to the logical conclusion that
the soil micro-organisms must be decomposing the soil minerals. Agronomists
too had to cencede this point in the face of the data. But they oppose my
recommendation of applying low quantities of non-composted, high calorie
biomass as manure on the ground that it amounted to soil mining, and that it
would eventually lead to depletion of fertility of the soil. Now you have
entered the debate saying that the soil micro-organisms would decompose only
the organic fraction of the soil and not the mineral fraction. So those who
oppose my views can now be divided into two camps. One camp denies the soil
micro-organisms the ability to decompose insoluble soil minerals into
soluble ions. The other camp concedes, at least for the sake of argument,
that soil micro-organisms do decompose the soil minerals, but rejects this
way of farming because it amounts to soil mining.
Yours
A.D.Karve
----- Original Message -----
From: Sean K. <mailto:sean.barry at juno.com> Barry
To: Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org ; adkarve <mailto:adkarve at pn2.vsnl.net.in>
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 9:36 PM
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] John Cowan's comments
Hi A.D.
Specifically what are the "minerals" that you say soil microorganisms get
from soil?
I say that soil microorganisms decompose plant organic matter and soil
microorganisms represent organic matter in soil themselves. Plant growth
requires most substantially, amounts of plant nutrients obtained from soil,
including; nitrogen-N, phosporus-P, potassium-K, Calcium-Ca, Sulfur-S,
Magnesium-Mg, and Iron-Fe. Combined with carbon dioxide-CO2 from the air
and water-H2O from the air and the soil, plants grow and require magnitudes
more of these organic elements than they do of any other trace "minerals".
I firmly believe that a healthy population of soil microorganisms is
essential to decompose ORGANIC matter in soil to make the ionic forms of the
plant nutrients available to plants growing above the soil. This is in fact
what the action of "composting" is, microorganisms decomposing organic
matter. The largest inorganic "mineral" content in soil is by far silica;
sand is silicon dioxide-SiO2 and clay is aluminum silicate. Plants do not
need soil microorganisms to decompose inorganic minerals from rocks in order
to help them grow. Plants need soil microorganisms to decompose soil
organic matter and make more ionic forms of plant nutrients (N, P, K, S, Ca,
Fe) available to the plants.
A.D., if you claim there are other more essential inorganic mineral content
in soil required for plant growth, then I think you are wrong. There is
just not enough inorganic mineral content in plant matter to validate that
claim. When you claim that adding sugar to a field promotes the growth of
soil organic matter, then I am inclined to agree, but the action of that
increased population of soil microorganisms is to decompose organic
nutrients from organic matter in soil, not inorganic minerals from rocks.
Do you not agree? Can you not see this? Can you not see that your
suggestion for small caloric applications to agricultural fields rather than
chemical fertilizers is still an possibly effective method, even if the
microorganisms don't decompose rocks?
If you cannot buy my analysis, then I suggest you try an experiment. Cook
some sand, clean it, sterilize it, whatever to wash it so it is completely
free of any organic matter (living or dead) whatsoever. Then put sugar and
all the live soil microorganisms you want into it. Put the same amount of
sugar and soil microorganisms into regular soil. Plant some same plants or
seeds into both of them. I would hypothesis, that the sweet sand will
produce SMALLER growth than the sweet soil. The difference being the soil
contains ORGANIC MATTER.
I do not accuse. I debate.
SKB
----- Original Message -----
From: adkarve <mailto:adkarve at pn2.vsnl.net.in>
To: Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 9:18 AM
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] John Cowan's comments
Dear Sean,
I think that you have misunderstood me. In the mail that I wrote to Juergen,
I did not say what you accuse me of saying. I had mentioned silica in one of
my earlier messages. But that was just to show that the silica found in many
green plant species must come from the soil, as none of our chemical
fertilizers contain silica. A crop of wheat or rice removes 250 kg of silica
every year from a hectare of soil. I use this example as an indirect proof
that soil micro-organisms convert the normally insoluble soil minerals into
their component ions. What I have been trying to say all the while is that
plants can get all the mineral elements required for their metabolism from
soil minerals through the activity of soil microbes. We can help this
natural process by feeding non-composted high calorie organic material to
the microbes.
Yours
A.D.Karve
----- Original Message -----
From: Sean K. <mailto:sean.barry at juno.com> Barry
To: Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org ; adkarve <mailto:adkarve at pn2.vsnl.net.in>
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 12:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] John Cowan's comments
Hi A.D.
Why can't it be that a well fed (by sugars in organic material) soil microbe
population will make more ions of plant nutrients (elements N, P, K, Ca, Mg,
Fe, etc.) available for uptake by plants (through their roots)? What makes
you think that Silicon or any of the other elements found in soil minerals
and as mere trace elements in plants are what microbes are decomposing off
of mineral rocks and making available to plants?
Plants which show increased biomass yield have far greater increases in the
numbers of atoms of the plants nutrients (N, P, K, Ca, Mg, Fe), and
molecules of CO2 and H2O, than they have in increases of trace elements. Do
you not think so?
SKB
----- Original Message -----
From: adkarve <mailto:adkarve at pn2.vsnl.net.in>
To: Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 7:41 PM
Subject: [Terrapreta] John Cowan's comments
Dear John,
I am a hundred percent with you. Charcoal is a valuable fuel. A small
quantity of charcoal added to the soil as an amendment would be acceptable,
but making charcoal and burying it in the soil just as a means of carbon
sequestration would not be acceptable. Growing forests is a better way of
carbon sequestration. Charcoal is highly porous. It is my hunch that it not
only offers extra surface for microbes to settle on, but also a place where
they can survive in the dry season. I have also aired my view, that the
microbes degraded soil minerals because they needed the mineral ions for
their own metabolism. Plants learned the trick of feeding the microbes with
organic matter, so that their numbers increased and they thus made more
nutrients available to the plants.
Yours
Dr.A.D.Karve, President,
Appropriate Rural Technology Institute,
Pune, India.
_______________________________________________
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/
_______________________________________________
Terrapreta mailing list
Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org/attachments/20070422/acb98685/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Terrapreta
mailing list