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

[lou gold]

link?

On Dec 11, 2007 5:02 PM, Chuck Yokota <cyokota at innovativeenergyinc.com>
wrote:

>  Here is a link to a Masters thesis about tierra negra in Bolivia, which
> the author equates to terra preta.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> *From:* terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org [mailto:
> terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org] *On Behalf Of *lou gold
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 11, 2007 12:09 PM
> *To:* Greg and April
> *Cc:* Terrapreta preta
> *Subject:* Re: [Terrapreta] Domesticated animals of S America (
> wastorrefaction vs. Carbonization - CharHydrophobic /Hydrophilic characters
> )
>
>
>
> I see that you saw the clarification from Nikolaus Foidl. Good. We are all
> learning here.
>
> With regard to TP in Bolivia, is there any chance that you are referring
> to the BBC El Dorado documentary? They started in Bolivia, showing island
> mounds that included lots of pottery shards but they did not discuss any
> terra preta soils in this region. They did discuss the Spanish arriving
> along roads and using horses. The TP discussion came only when they shifted
> location to the central Amazon, where Orellana explored by boat.
>
> hugs,   lou
>
>
>  On Dec 11, 2007 3:55 PM, Greg and April <gregandapril at earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> 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 <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 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://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/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: /attachments/20071211/9186897a/attachment.html