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

[lou gold]

How did the llamas get from the slopes of the Andes to the central amazon
basin through dense forest?

Here's the map of known terra preta sites:
http://www.gerhardbechtold.com/TP/BrazilTP3.php?vers=2

As you can see none of the sites seem to be near the main Andean range of
llamas. I've never heard of them in the central Amazon. I could be wrong.
Hope you find something solid about it.

lou



On Dec 9, 2007 10:17 PM, Greg and April <gregandapril at earthlink.net> wrote:

>  < LOL >
> Someone would have to ask for the name of a library book I read 3 yrs ago.
>
> Ok, if we can accept that lama's as a species are native to Bolivia, and
> we know that the natives domesticated them using them as pack animals, fiber
> animals, and meat animals, and that the Amazon basin also occupies part of
> Bolivia with it's own Terra Preta - it's not to far to reason that at least
> some of the natives who made Terra Preta knew of llamas, and their dung
> heaps.
>
> What I am not saying, is that those **same** natives that made Terra Preta
> and the natives that made use of llamas are one in the same - short of
> finding pottery with depictions of llamas on them in the Terra Preta we will
> probably never know.    But, if they were smart enough to figure out that
> certain things made the soil better, I would be real surprised if they
> couldn't domesticate animals like the llama, or make use of the dung heaps.
>
> I will look for more info about the use of llamas in areas other than the
> Andies on line, but I give you a couple of websites that demonstrates that
> man made soils were not only in use in the Amazon basin but on the plains of
> S America, just below the Andes as well.
>
> http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~cerickso/baures/Mann2.html<http://www.sas.upenn.edu/%7Ecerickso/baures/Mann2.html>
> http://news.mongabay.com/2005/1017-amazon.html
>
> The first one is particularly good as it has some aerial pics that show
> that even today, the areas that were worked, are more fertile now, then the
> surrounding areas.
>
> Greg H.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* lou gold <lou.gold at gmail.com>
> *To:* Greg and April <gregandapril at earthlink.net>
> *Cc:*
> *Sent:* Sunday, December 09, 2007 15:21
> *Subject:* Re: [Terrapreta] Domesticated animals of S America ( was
> torrefaction vs. Carbonization - CharHydrophobic / Hydrophilic characters )
>
> 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/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/a911ad72/attachment.html