[Terrapreta] Terrapreta Digest, Vol 11, Issue 27
Nikolaus Foidl
nfoidl at desa.com.bo
Sun Dec 9 18:51:01 CST 2007
Dear All!
The llamas are and where living at altidudes above 1500 meters above sea
level. They would not survive very long at humid rainforest conditions.
( to much wool and not adapted to hot and humid climate).
I am living in Bolivia and at moderate climates like Santa Cruz you even
dont have llamas. The others of the same family even need more cold and dry
conditions then llamas.There where no horses , cows or pigs.
In Amazon basin they had no domestic animals which where bigger then dogs.
In the peruvian dry coast lands and in some parts of Bolivia they had
hairless dogs. (only protein source for the aristocrats)The rest of proteins
was gathered by hunting. In Amazon basin the most proteins where fish.
Regards Nikolaus
On 12/9/07 8:18 PM, "terrapreta-request at bioenergylists.org"
<terrapreta-request at bioenergylists.org> wrote:
> 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: Domesticated animals of S America ( was torrefaction vs.
> Carbonization - CharHydrophobic / Hydrophilic characters ) (lou gold)
> 2. Re: Charcoal costs (Tom Miles)
> 3. Re: Domesticated animals of S America ( was torrefaction vs.
> Carbonization - CharHydrophobic / Hydrophilic characters )
> (Greg and April)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 20:21:30 -0200
> From: "lou gold" <lou.gold at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Domesticated animals of S America ( was
> torrefaction vs. Carbonization - CharHydrophobic / Hydrophilic
> characters )
> To: "Greg and April" <gregandapril at earthlink.net>
> Cc: Terrapreta preta <terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
> Message-ID:
> <90d45c6d0712091421g3dc0c6fcqc12b71ba7aa6b09a at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> 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 vicu?a.
>>
>> The guanacos, were much like the semi-domesticated native sheep and goats
>> and mostly used for meat while vicu?a's are a big question mark. It could
>> be that, vicu?as 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, vicu?a'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
>>
>
>
More information about the Terrapreta
mailing list