[Terrapreta] John Cowan's comments

[Kevin Chisholm]

Dear Sean

Sean K. Barry wrote:
> Hi Kevin,
> 
...del...
>> Can you present one palpable reason why microorganisms are 
>> inherently incapable of converting the chemical constituents of 
>> inorganic minerals into a form which is more readily available to 
>> plants? At least one, but just one would be helpful.
> 
> I never said that microorganisms cannot do this. 

So, all that Dr. Karve is saying is that microorganisms help make soil 
constituents more available to the plants, and that it helps to feed 
them sugar. You now seem to be in basic agreement with his basic belief.

  I said plants don't
> need inorganic chemicals ion nearly as much as they need organic
> chemical ions (the plant nutrients, N, P, K, S, Ca, Mg, Fe, etc).  I
> contend that soil microorganisms are more important for the function
> they perform in decomposing these plant nutrients from organic matter
> in the soil, rather than for the decomposing of inorganic ions that
> they can perhaps do as well.

Interesting. How does one decompose ions? Please tell us how to 
decompose a Calcium Ion.  Please tell us how decomposition of ions is 
relevant to plant growth. Please tell us the end products that result 
when you decompose a Calcium ion. This should be very interesting!

   Plants and animals who eat plants
> simply are not made up of mostly sand!

You seem to be posing a straw man arguement. Dr. Karve never said this.

   Free silicon ions taken in by
> roots of plants will not make them live.  Life exists as organic
> chemical compounds.  These ORGANIC compounds (by definition!) do not
> contain lots of INORGANIC chemicals.
> 
I would suggest the inorganic chemicals that the plants get from the 
soil and inorganic fertilizers are converted to a transportable form by 
plant root chemistry or soil life forms, and that in most cases, these 
previously inorganic chemicals are in an organic form. Some, such as 
highly soluble nitrate and potash fertilizers, may be taken up directly.


> Making an INORGANIC mineral  (crystal, element, or compound, whatever
> ) soluble in soil only means to make it dissolve in water that is in
> the soil.  Soluble does not mean turn it into an ORGANIC chemical
> that will be taken up by the roots of and used by a plant in place of
> an actual ORGANIC chemical that the plant needs to build its ORGANIC
> structures.
> 
> Look here ->
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soluble<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soluble>
> 
You are posing a Straw man argument. All he says is that if you feed 
sugar to the microorganisms, the result is that the plants grow better. 
Dr. Karve's proposal is based on a pragmatic observation, and basically, 
all he says is that if you put sugar on the soil, the plants grow 
better. You are attempting to make his proposal fit with your present 
paradigm.
> 
> This all seems pretty obvious stuff to me, Kevin.  This post of yours
> seems more and more like you are trying to bait me. I'm not going to
> agree that plants can grow well in inorganic mineral rocks alone, if
> someone just adds 25kg of sugar to it every 2 or three months.

OK, either you trust what he says, and go with it, or you provide proof 
that what he advocates is wrong. You can ask questions for 
clarification, but you can't demand that he provides proof of his 
observations, simply because it does not fit with your present 
understanding of how things work. First, you should seek to understand 
what he is proposing. Then ask questions. You cannot demand answers. You 
cannot mis-state his proposal just to prove him wrong.

> Either there is actual addition of the necessary plant nutrients (N,
> P, K, S, etc) being made to those fields, or Dr. Karve cannot
> recognize them for what they are.  Incidently, cow manure and urea
> from cows (piss) do contain the plant nutrients (and in relatively
> high concentrations).  I think that is because cows eat plants and
> not rocks.  These too were being added to the soil, by Dr. Karve's
> own report.

You quote him out of context. Note that he specifically states:
">> 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."
This strikes me as a very clear and definitive statement as to what was 
added or not added to the soil. Given that there have been no nutrient 
additions, the question is now whether or not Dr. Karve can recognize 
cow manure when he sees it. I am sure he can. I am also sure he can 
recognize bull manure when he sees it also.
> 
> So, maybe the sugar gave the soil microorganisms the energy they
> needed to dissolve those necessary plant nutrients off those organic
> chemical compounds, which fel out of those living organic cows onto
> the soil?  <- Do you think?

That is not what he is saying.

I don't think you understand what he is saying. Either that, or you are 
more interested in an armchair academic debate than expanding your 
knowledge about a different growing paradigm.

Dr Karve heads up ARTI, which won an Ashden Award in 2006 and 2002:
http://www.ashdenawards.org/media_summary06_india_arti

Anyone who wins not one, but TWO Ashden Awards has alot of credibility 
going for him when he proposes a different growing paradigm. His results 
speak for themselves. What is your background?

Kevin


> 
> SKB
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- From: Kevin
> Chisholm<mailto:kchisholm at ca.inter.net> To: Sean K.
> Barry<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com> Cc:
> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org> ;
> adkarve<mailto:adkarve at pn2.vsnl.net.in> Sent: Saturday, April 21,
> 2007 12:32 PM Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] John Cowan's comments
> 
> 
> Dear Sean
> 
> Sean K. Barry wrote:
>> 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?"
> 
> It is possible that he does not know the specific answer to your 
> specific question. I gather that he tried numerous experiments with
> his "sugar only" process, and got very good results. Accordingly, I
> would pose two very pragmatic approaches for your consideration:
> 
> 1: "It doesn't matter if his approach is right or wrong, if it works,
> it is right."
> 
> and 2: "Merely because a cow does not understand the workings of her
> 4th stomach is no reason why she shouldn't eat ghrass."
>> 
>> 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).
> 
> This is very confusing. I think you might be in serious error here.
> How can a "chemical element" be organic?
>> 
>> 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.
> 
> It is well known that plants can uptake silica. (For example, rice
> husks contain in the order of 20% silica.) Would you please outline
> the mechanisms by which "plants" solbilize silica.
> 
>> 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).
> 
> True. Plants can't do this either, yet plants have silica and
> inorganic chemicals in them that they somehow managed to split off
> from minerals in the soil. Can you present one palpable reason why
> microorganisms are inherently incapable of converting the chemical
> constituents of inorganic minerals into a form which is more readily
> available to plants? At least one, but just one would be helpful..
>> 
>> 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?
> 
> Like you, I have no idea how the little buggers could solubilize 
> inorganic minerals. However, simply because I don't know how they
> could do it is not a reason to suggest that they can't do it. Perhaps
> the little buggers know something that you and I don't. Dr. Karve's
> reality of getting improved growth with the addition of sugar trumps
> my ignorance.
> 
> So: At this stage I am puzzled by how the "sugar only" system works,
> but I know of no proof that would show it is impossible for it to
> work. Can you provide such proof that it cannot work?
> 
> In Vitro and In Vivo systems can be very different.
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Kevin
> 
> 
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> SKB
>> 
>> 
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: 
>> adkarve<mailto:adkarve at pn2.vsnl.net.in<mailto:adkarve at pn2.vsnl.net.in>>
>> To: 
>> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org%3Cmailto: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.
>> Barry<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com>> To: 
>> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org%3Cmailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>>
>> ; 
>> adkarve<mailto:adkarve at pn2.vsnl.net.in<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<mailto:adkarve at pn2.vsnl.net.in>>
>> To: 
>> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org%3Cmailto: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. Barry<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com>>
>> To: 
>> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org%3Cmailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>>
>> ; 
>> adkarve<mailto:adkarve at pn2.vsnl.net.in<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<mailto:adkarve at pn2.vsnl.net.in>>
>> To: 
>> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org%3Cmailto: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.