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

Greg and April gregandapril at earthlink.net
Tue Dec 11 12:55:41 EST 2007

Previous message: [Terrapreta] Domesticated animals of S America ( was torrefaction vs. Carbonization - CharHydrophobic / Hydrophilic characters )
Next message: [Terrapreta] Domesticated animals of S America ( was torrefaction vs. Carbonization - CharHydrophobic / Hydrophilic characters )
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Hmmmm.

That map is a bit different from others I have seen in the past couple of weeks. I have seen a map or two and there are a few websites that also list Bolivia as having TP soils, yet, the map you posted doesn't list any.

I could be wrong to, but, the important thing is that we are all hear to learn about TP soils.

I'll keep looking.

Greg H.
----- Original Message -----
From: lou gold
To: Greg and April
Cc: Terrapreta preta
Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2007 17:29
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Domesticated animals of S America ( was torrefaction vs. Carbonization - CharHydrophobic / Hydrophilic characters )

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://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
To: Greg and April
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
To: Greg and April
Cc: Terrapreta preta
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
To: Terrapreta preta
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
To: Nikolaus Foidl ; Gerald Van Koeverden ; Sean K. Barry
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

-------Original Message-------

From: Sean K. Barry
Date: 2007.12.09. 6:22:14
To: Nikolaus Foidl; Gerald Van Koeverden
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
To: Nikolaus Foidl
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

--
http://lougold.blogspot.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/visionshare/sets/

------------------------------------------------------------------

--
http://lougold.blogspot.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/visionshare/sets/

--
http://lougold.blogspot.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/visionshare/sets/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /attachments/20071211/23f13afa/attachment.html

Previous message: [Terrapreta] Domesticated animals of S America ( was torrefaction vs. Carbonization - CharHydrophobic / Hydrophilic characters )
Next message: [Terrapreta] Domesticated animals of S America ( was torrefaction vs. Carbonization - CharHydrophobic / Hydrophilic characters )
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

More information about the Terrapreta mailing list