[Terrapreta] Soil test and CEC

[lou gold]

Jim,

I agree about equal footing for soil renewal and carbon sequestration. The
current emphasis on the latter is because 1) that's where public attention
is focused and 2) that's what can be measured and 3) that's what people and
institutions are willing to pay for and 4) that's what everyone including
lots of poor farmers can do.

The challenge to to get the carbon moving into soil building rather than
mostly into energy consuming.



On Nov 7, 2007 2:40 PM, Jim Joyner <jimstoytn at yahoo.com> wrote:

> From: Sean K. Barry <sean.barry at juno.com>
>   I would like to mention again  . . .that one of the most important
> reasons for using a biomass feedstock to make charcoal (i.e. biochar) for
> amendment into soil is that the plants which constitute that biomass take
> CO2 out of the atmosphere when they grow . . .
>
> . . . I would point out that the entire climate system, not just the soils
> needs remediation.  The survivability of some current floral cultures and
> productivity of agriculture will not depend alone on soil health.  Rising
> GHG concentrations and the resulting higher global temperatures have been
> shown to increase the incidence and depth of droughts.  The atmosphere is
> being sickened daily with our pumping fossil fuel carbon into it.  Healthy
> soils alone under an unhealthy atmosphere is not going to get us what we
> wish to achieve in terms of agricultural revival.
>
> Amending soil with biochar made from grown biomass feedstock sources will
> improve both the atmosphere and the soils.
>
> Sean,
>
> While I think carbon sequestration is probably a good bet, anthropogenic
> causes are still something of a conjecture (I realize I may be somewhat
> politically incorrect here). While global climate change may be a given,
> there are more better and reasons to believe climate change is due to solar
> activity and their effect on cosmic rays.
>
> I bring this up, not to start an argument about climate change and causes
> but to point out that carbon sequestration will have an attendant cost and
> someone will have to bare it. The reason why I think carbon sequestration is
> still a good bet is because much the expense for it can be borne by the cost
> of cleaning up the Earth's air of pollution -- we know who is causing that
> and roughly who should pay for it.
>
> My other concern is that if humans are not causing climate change, we have
> an even bigger problem: adapting. We will need disparately to find better
> ways to feed people in a changing environment. We need to grow crops with
> better moisture and nutrient retention. So, I would put soil improvement on
> at least an equal footing with carbon sequestration if not a higher
> priority.
>
> Jim
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20071107/76a2ea66/attachment-0001.html