[Terrapreta] Domesticated animals of S America ( was torrefaction vs. Carbonization - CharHydrophobic / Hydrophilic characters )

[lou gold]

Very interesting Greg. I was totally unaware that the llama family was in
the central amazon basin and that they were used as domesticated animals.
Please send me some citations for this so that I can better educate myself.

Thanks,   lou

On Dec 9, 2007 2:21 PM, Greg and April <gregandapril at earthlink.net> wrote:

>  Now understand I don't raise llamas or alpacas but, I have been
> considering it, and as such I have been studying what I can find, and
> talking to people that have.
> To the best of my knowledge that particular family of animals were used at
> all levels of the area, and fossil evidence ( which for the llama family
> give us the most complete picture of all animals ) tells us that the wild
> ancestors originated on the plains of N America some 40 million yrs ago and
> drifted south.
>
> Llamas were the main beast of burden for the entire region until horses
> mules and donkeys were introduced at the time of the Spanish conquest.
>
> Alpacas ( two types - Huacaya and Suri ) were generally from the higher
> altitudes and were mainly used for fiber, because of that.    Keep in mind
> there is no such thing as a wild alpaca, the closest wild relative is
> the vicuña.
>
> The guanacos, were much like the semi-domesticated native sheep and goats
> and mostly used for meat while vicuña's are a big question mark.    It could
> be that, vicuñas were descendants of the domesticated species that went
> feral, and adapted to the exceptionally high altitudes in the more wild
> areas, but their fiber is even finer than the best alpaca - so it could have
> been deliberate as well.
>
> If the TP sites were deliberate, rather than happenstance, I could very
> easily see the dung being transported.    The llama family like some other
> animals tend to repeatedly use one general area as a dung heap rather than
> spread it around.    There are some places where the members of particular
> wild herds ( generally family groups  - size dependant on the available food
> supply ), have gone in the same general place for so long, that the mounds
> might be 15-20 yards across and 11/2 - 2  yards higher than the surrounding
> area.    Such mounds could be mined for the dung and rich soil beneath it if
> the demand was great enough.
>
> Greg H.
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- ,
> *From:* lou gold <lou.gold at gmail.com>
> *To:* Greg and April <gregandapril at earthlink.net>
> *Cc:* Terrapreta preta <terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
> *Sent:* Sunday, December 09, 2007 7:52
> *Subject:* Re: [Terrapreta] torrefaction vs. Carbonization ---------
> CharHydrophobic / Hydrophilic characters
>
> I'm not very knowledgeable about the central amazon basin. I haven't heard
> of it. There certainly were animals in the upland forest of the Andes.
>
> Greg, please correct me on this if you know of animal use in the lowland
> basin.
>
>
>
> On Dec 9, 2007 12:41 PM, Greg and April <gregandapril at earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> >  They raised llama's, guanaco's, vicuña's and alpaca's.    There is some
> > indication that semi-wild goats and sheep were also raised and used, but not
> > to the level of the llama and it's relations were.
> >
> > Greg H.
> >
> >
> >  ----- Original Message -----
> > *From:* Gerald Van Koeverden <vnkvrdn at yahoo.ca>
> >   *To:* Terrapreta preta <terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
> > *Sent:* Sunday, December 09, 2007 6:29
> > *Subject:* Re: [Terrapreta] torrefaction vs. Carbonization ---------
> > CharHydrophobic / Hydrophilic characters
> >
> > Lou,
> > just a wild idea...
> >
> > Did Amazonian Indians raise any animals for food or burden?  If not,
> > then the only manure they had to enrich compost was their own.  Maybe they
> > were the first in the world to develop composting toilets using earth kiln
> > pots/pits...??
> >
> >
> >  On 9-Dec-07, at 1:34 AM, lou gold wrote:
> >
> > To everyone,
> >
> > I keep asking this question -- how did they make terra preta? -- from my
> > nonscientific intuitive space.
> >
> > I keep returning to the pottery shards as a vital clue. I think these
> > folks fired their pottery in the ground by building a fire around the
> > pottery and covering it all up with dirt. It's an uncertain but common
> > indigenous method to fire clay, lots of pieces break and are left behind.
> >
> > I speculate that the next step was to dump organic waste into these
> > earth kiln pits and that after some appropriate time of gestation terra
> > preta was produced that was then transfered to fields as an amendment.
> >
> > Does this help in your speculations?
> >
> > hugs,  lou
> >
> >
> >
> > On Dec 9, 2007 4:19 AM, Sean K. Barry <sean.barry at juno.com> wrote:
> >
> > >  Hi Edward,
> > >
> > > I've read what you said here and it brings me to ask a question.  The
> > > original makers of Terra Preta soil in the Amazon did not have the kind of
> > > tools that you have to make charcoal.  Clearly, they (all of them) could not
> > > have come up with the same "innovative carbonization thermal process" that
> > > you have developed.  So, the question I have for you is ... "How could they
> > > have may charcoal suitable for TP and what process did they use?"  They are
> > > the only ones who actually did succeed (provably so) in making Terra Preta
> > > soils work.  And another question I have for you ... Are you absolutely sure
> > > that the residual tars left on conventional low temperature charcoal are
> > > toxic to all living things; toxic to all animals, plants, and/or all soil
> > > microorganisms?
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > SKB
> > >
> > >  ----- Original Message -----
> > > *From:* Edward Someus <edward at terrenum.net>
> > > *To:* Nikolaus Foidl <nfoidl at desa.com.bo> ; Gerald Van Koeverden<vnkvrdn at yahoo.ca>; Sean
> > > K. Barry <sean.barry at juno.com>
> > > *Cc:* terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> > >   *Sent:* Saturday, December 08, 2007 11:42 PM
> > > *Subject:* Re: [Terrapreta] torrefaction vs. Carbonization ---------
> > > Char Hydrophobic / Hydrophilic characters
> > >
> > >   *TECHNICAL NOTICE ===== Char Hydrophobic / Hydrophilic characters*
> > >
> > > It is depending on process conditions. Usually the low efficient
> > > thermal processes are leaving high % organic residuals (hydrophobic tars)
> > > behind,  which makes them unsuitable for TP. Most chars are for energy
> > > (where tar residuals are positively utilized) , not only because it is
> > > higher priced, but these hydrophobic chars are not suitable for soil
> > > application, not to talk about the tar residuals high toxicity for soil
> > > life.
> > >
> > > *My char I am producing is hydrophilic as my innovative carbonization
> > > thermal process has been specifically developed for soil adaptation
> > > application. *
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Sincerely yours: Edward Someus (environmental engineer)
> > > Terra Humana Clean Tech Ltd. (ISO 9001/ISO 14001)
> > > 3R Environmental Technologies Ltd.
> > > ADDRESS: H-1222 Budapest, Szechenyi 59, Hungary
> > > TEL handy:  +(36-20) 201 7557
> > > TEL / FAX:   +(36-1) 424 0224
> > > TEL SKYPE phone via computer:  Edward Someus
> > > 3R TERRACARBON:   *http://**www.terrenum.net*
> > > 3R CLEANCOAL ENERGY: *http://www.nvirocleantech.com*<http://www.nvirocleantech.com/>
> > > **
> > > * <http://www.vertustechnologies.com/>*
> > > *-------Original Message-------*
> > >
> > >  *From:* Sean K. Barry <sean.barry at juno.com>
> > > *Date:* 2007.12.09. 6:22:14
> > > *To:* Nikolaus Foidl <nfoidl at desa.com.bo>;   Gerald Van Koeverden<vnkvrdn at yahoo.ca>
> > > *Cc:* terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> > > *Subject:* Re: [Terrapreta] torrefaction vs. carbonization
> > >
> > >  Hi Gerrit,
> > >
> > > Charcoal is hydorphobic.  Charcoal is inert and does not alone absorb
> > > nutrients.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > SKB
> > >  ----- Original Message -----
> > > *From:* Gerald Van Koeverden <vnkvrdn at yahoo.ca>
> > > *To:* Nikolaus Foidl <nfoidl at desa.com.bo>
> > > *Cc:* terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> > > *Sent:* Saturday, December 08, 2007 4:20 PM
> > > *Subject:* [Terrapreta] torrefaction vs. carbonization
> > >
> > > Nick,
> > >
> > > I had to look up what torrefaction was:
> > >
> > > "Torrefaction is mild pre-treatment of any biomass (including bamboo)
> > > at a temperature between
> > > 200 and 250° C. During torrefaction the properties of bamboo undergo
> > > changes, wherein the end
> > > product has much better fuel quality compared to biomass for
> > > combustion application. The
> > > decomposition reactions during this process results in bamboo becoming
> > > completely dry and
> > > loose its tenacious structure, also the hygroscopic nature of the
> > > biomass is changed to
> > > hydrophobic material. Besides this, the process increases the
> > > calorific value of the end product.
> > > The actual weight loss in this period would be about 20 to 25 %
> > > whereas 90 % of the energy of
> > > the parent dry material is preserved in the torrefied matter. The
> > > combustion process of this matter
> > > has less problematic volatiles and hence the process is closer to that
> > > of charcoal. It can therefore
> > > be used as an alternate to charcoal in many applications. It also
> > > makes the material immune to
> > > attack by fungi. Hence long term storage without degradation is
> > > possible."
> > >
> > > Based on 15 minutes of research, it doesn't look promising.  It would
> > > seem that this super-drying of wood makes it hydrophobic...and if it stays
> > > that dry in the soil, it would be difficult for nutrients to move through a
> > > soil solution into it.  Moreover, it doesn't sound like it is conducive for
> > > a 'fungal' bridge between itself as a microhabit for microrganisms with the
> > > soil;  in char mixed with composting material, the char actually becomes a
> > > microhabit for fungus...
> > > However, this is only speculation.
> > >
> > > How closely have you examined the torrefied wood you have found in the
> > > soil?  Does it 'house' microrganisms?  Has it absorbed soil nutrients?  Or
> > > is it merely an inert material taking up space?
> > >
> > > gerrit
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >  On 8-Dec-07, at 2:21 PM, Nikolaus Foidl wrote:
> > >
> > >  Dear all!
> > >
> > > My charcoal costs at a charring efficiency of 42 % is around 35 US$
> > > per ton
> > > Charcoal. Now after analyzing 15 year old soil where huge amounts of
> > > forest
> > > where simply burned and charred. Now excavating I find huge amounts of
> > > only
> > > torrefied wood pieces which as well did not degrade, like the charcoal
> > > chunks.
> > > Now looking at this and if torrefied wood would do the same as is
> > > charcoal,
> > > why not save a huge amount of additional CO2 and just torrefy the
> > > stuff and
> > > mill it and then burry it? Cost per ton would drop to half, CO2 taken
> > > out of
> > > the atmosphere rise by 50 to 70 %.
> > > Just an idea but maybe worth to be discussed.
> > > Best regards Nikolaus
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Terrapreta mailing list
> > > Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> > > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
> > >
> > > http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
> > > http://info.bioenergylists.org
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Terrapreta mailing list
> > > Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> > > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
> > >
> > > http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
> > > http://info.bioenergylists.org
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Terrapreta mailing list
> > > Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> > >
> > > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
> > > http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
> > > http://info.bioenergylists.org
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > http://lougold.blogspot.com/
> > http://www.flickr.com/photos/visionshare/sets/
> >
> >
> >  ------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Terrapreta mailing list
> > Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
> >
> > http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
> > http://info.bioenergylists.org
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Terrapreta mailing list
> > Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
> > http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
> > http://info.bioenergylists.org
> >
>
>
>
> --
> http://lougold.blogspot.com/
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/visionshare/sets/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Terrapreta mailing list
> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
> http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
> http://info.bioenergylists.org
>



-- 
http://lougold.blogspot.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/visionshare/sets/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org/attachments/20071209/3a959176/attachment.html