[Terrapreta] growth

[Robert Klein]

Hi Sean


This goes to the heart of the problem facing the
originators of the terra preta soils.

1     They did not have the tools to physically handle
the available biomass.  We actually have limitations
today.  Their solution was as always to use slash and
burn.  The burn off of the undergrowth would also kill
off the larger trees which would then rot out over the
next two years or so.  Remember, that this is the
Amazon.

2    The ash would provide the nutrients for corn and
cassava culture.  Without terra Preta methods, this
would be exhausted in two to three years.

3      With terra preta methods applied to the corn in
particular, and a continuing burn off of the field to
suppress weeds and regrowth we get the resultant soils
with a modest labor input.

4     I emphasize the corn because it clearly produces
the several times as much biomass as any likely crop
can produce, and it lends itself to the manufacture of
a biochar stack.  However, any other convenient waste
material that could be handled by hand would also be
thrown into the stack.

5    Pollen analysis has confirmed the two principal
crops of corn and cassava, which ended any uncertainty
I might have had.

The problem is that the only energy available to a
farm family then was their own.  That is the over
riding constraint that we cannot avoid.

--- "Sean K. Barry" <sean.barry at juno.com> wrote:

> Hi Robert,
> 
> You said this again, (and I questioned before
> whether you meant what you had posted before) ...
> 
> "As I posted a while back, the only practical way
> that
> the soils in the Amazon could have been created
> would
> have been in conjunction with the bio charring of
> corn
> stover."
> 
> Why do you think the Ancient Amazon rainforest had
> corn, circa 2500 B.C. or since?  I think, like now,
> that there is far more "rainforest" fauna in that
> biome (i.e. big trees, in a jungle, like American
> Mahogany trees, etc.), rather than corn, or maze. 
> Don't you?  There surely is now.  Is there any
> evidence that the charcoal in the Amazon is from
> corn stover?  The native soils (without charcoal
> amendments) in the Amazon rain basin are Antisol and
> Oxisol soils.  These are high in Aluminum Silicates
> (clays), low in carbon, and very low in organic
> material (humus) or plant nutrients.  Corn will
> hardly grow in this kind of soil.  It's kind of a
> chicken or the egg thing.  Corn can't grow well
> until you plant it in "Terra Preta" soil - "Terra
> Preta" soil is made by amending soil with charcoal
> made from lots of corn?!
> 
> Do you have any evidence for your conjecture?  Or,
> are you supposing that corn stover must be the only
> or main source of biomass used to make the charcoal
> in the original "Terra Preta" soils of the Ancient
> Amazon?  Why do you suppose this?
> 
> Regards,
> 
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: Robert Klein<mailto:arclein at yahoo.com> 
>   To: Richard Haard<mailto:richrd at nas.com> 
>   Cc: terra
> preta<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org> 
>   Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 1:00 PM
>   Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] growth
> 
> 
>   Hi Richard
> 
>   One of the great delights of doing science, is
> that
>   every experiment introduces new areas of study.
> 
>   As I posted a while back, the only practical way
> that
>   the soils in the Amazon could have been created
> would
>   have been in conjunction with the bio charring of
> corn
>   stover.
> 
>   Running test plots with such a biochar perhaps
>   produced at several temperatures in conjunction
> with
>   wood charcoal comparibles would be very
> informative.
> 
>   The question, of course, is there any obvious
>   difference?
> 
>   Certainly wood charcoal needs to be taken to a
> high
>   temperatue to provide crushable charcoal, whereas
>   stover is far less fussy and much more forgiving
> 
>   Bob Klein
> 
>  
>
http://globalwarming-arclein.blogspot.com<http://globalwarming-arclein.blogspot.com/>
> 
> 
>   --- Richard Haard
> <richrd at nas.com<mailto:richrd at nas.com>> wrote:
> 
>   > Some results from the 28 - 17 foot planting
> block
>   > experiment with  
>   > charcoal, compost, fertilizer and permutations.
> at
>   > Fourth Corner  
>   > Nurseries with swiss chard, a native aster and a
>   > woody shrub,  
>   > Lonicera involucrata.
>   > 
>   > Spent a few hours at the research plots today.
>   > Picked swiss chard and  
>   > squash for dinner and farm crew.
>   > 
>   > Above ground results so far (July 29) are as
>   > expected. Best is  
>   > compost plus fertilizer with or without
> charcoal,
>   > next fertilizer  
>   > with or without charcoal, next compost with or
>   > without charcoal and  
>   > last control with or without charcoal. The only
>   > measurable  
>   > differences in these sets is with the swiss
> chard.
>   > 
>   > I decided to omit the urea treatment as soil
>   > analysis showed adequate  
>   > nitrogen levels in both compost and  fertilizer
>   > treatment sets.  
>   > Growth is very rapid now and I plan next week to
>   > harvest and blanch  
>   > November.
>   > 
>   > A first look at the soil analysis on samples
>   > collected end of June .  
>   > Next samples will be taken for soil testing in
>   > November just before  
>   > harvest. This set of samples is essentially at
> the
>   > beginning of the  
>   > experiment about 6 weeks after plots were set
> up. 23
>   > months to go  
>   > before the experiment is finished.
>   > 
>   > Total = 24 plots All OM= 5.04 (.72)  All N=14.7
>   > (9.4)
>   > 
>   > Total =  2 plots control OM = 4.6 (1.7)  N= 2.5
>   > (.71)
>   > Total =  6 plots charcoal and control OM = 4.73
>   > (.79)  N=5 (5.1)
>   > Total =  4 plots charcoal  OM = 4.8 (.27)  N=
> 6.25
>   > (6.1)
>   > 
>   > 
>   > Total =   2 plots compost OM=5  (.57) N=10 (2.8)
>   > Total =   4 plots compost and charcoal OM=5.78 
>   > (.60) N=12.75 (3.4)
>   > Total =   4 plots compost and fertilizer and
>   > charcoal OM=5.5 (.34)  
>   > N=19.25 (7.3)
>   > Total =   2 plots compost and fertilizer OM=5 
> (.42)
>   > N=34 (2.8)
>   > 
>   > Total =  2 plots fertilizer OM= 4.65 (.77) N=20
>   > (11.3)
>   > Total =  4 plots fertilizer and charcoal OM=
> 4.53
>   > (.64)  N=16.75 (2.6)
>   > 
>   > Key
>   >          OM= organic matter %
>   >          N= nitrate ppm
>   >          bracketed (__) = standard deviation (a
>   > statistical measure  
>   > of variation between the set of samples)
>   > 
>   > Considerable variation is noted in soil analysis
>   > numbers at either  
>   > ends of test row hence an explanation of large
>   > variability seen in  
>   > some sets.
>   > 
>   > It is interesting to see the effect of compost
>   > ,fertilizer and  
>   > charcoal additions on soil om and nitrate. Have
> not
>   > looked at this  
>   > set of data yet on some of the other items of
>   > interest as CEC, and %  
>   > base saturation.  There is essentially no
> difference
>   > between the  
>   > treatments  in pH and buffer pH.
>   > 
>   > 
>   > 
>   > _______________________________________________
>   > Terrapreta mailing list
>   >
>
Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
>   >
>  
>
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/<http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/>
>   >
>
http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org<http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/>
>   >
>
http://info.bioenergylists.org<http://info.bioenergylists.org/>
>   > 
> 
> 
> 
> 
=== message truncated ===



       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase.
http://farechase.yahoo.com/