[Terrapreta] The new "Black Gold" is already on sale in Indonesia!

lou gold lou.gold at gmail.com
Sat Sep 1 09:07:44 EDT 2007


Dear Robert and TP list,

Yes, yes, absolutely! The soil is the true harvest. It can be compared to
the placenta -- the energy exchange network that supports new and renewed
life. This can not be said too many times and I am grateful that people are
saying it here, eloquently. I thank you for saying that it is the soil that
matters most.

It is my understanding that the natural system that honors this best is a
forest and that the best agricultural practices are the ones that are most
forest-like, hence permaculture and "agro-forestry", etc. A key element of
these systems is learning how to capture, treat and recycle waste within the
system. Developing technologies such as pyrolysis for cellulostic fibers,
offering new manure treatments, etc are directing the focus of agriculture
back to the soil. It is mostly about reducing pollution and turning waste
into new life. It can be said that the new goal is to produce a
near-to-zero-wast system, as in a forest.

But, here is the rub: Where did the the wasteful system come from? It came
from cutting down forests that produce a diversity of life, maximum
conservation of soil and water, maximum carbon sequestration and least
wastes and replacing it with a specialized system that maximizes the
production of feed-stocks and wastes -- an agriculture.  All civilizations
are based on agriculture and deforestation. Evidently, there were people in
the past (such as terra preta Indians) who achieved a balance between forest
and farm. But the modern transformation has given us the dominating
"developed" form of large-scale industrial mono-cultural, chemical, petrol
and machine based factory farming.

Our world is energy hungry. It has a lot of people and more to come. It
seems that there is always a demand for more stuff that requires that we
produce more BTUs in the form of food and fuel. From my perch in Brazil, I
watch as soybeans, sugarcane and cattle destroy forests. I watch as at least
some people reap the benefits of development and as televisions and
refrigerators and industrial profits arrive in the Amazon. I watch as the
wasteful mistakes of the past seem to be repeating on a grand scale.

I wonder -- can the new black gold change this? How?

I would really appreciate hearing your thoughts.

Best regards and thanks,

lou










On 8/31/07, Robert Flanagan <saffechina at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>   See: http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/flanaganaug3107
>
>
>
> Dear David and terrapreta list,
>
>
>
> All I can say is David, thank God there are people like you on this
> mailing list and I personally want to thank you for taking time to clearly
> point out the true magic of Terra Preta is the biology above all else!
>
>
>
> Only yesterday in a conversation with Danny Day I stress the same thing
> "Stop talking about biomass to fuel and focus on biochar for soil
> restoration". I've been asking the same question time and time again "What
> is the best charcoal for long term microbial response"? To date I have not
> received an definitive answer! but as I've mentioned before Robert Hill
> noted that charcoal made in the flash carbonizer appeared the have a higher
> response.
>
>
>
> Regarding the application of biochar in agriculture and the naming of
> "Black Gold" or "New Black Gold" there is already a company selling the
> closest thing I've seen to terra preta in Indonesia. This product is not
> just the output of some mindless mixing of "X" and "Y" to get "Z". Here they
> start the process by first introducing microbes into the animals feed then
> the take the odourless manure and mix that with waste mushroom compost,
> charcoal and dolomite. Then they apply more microbes and allow to ferment
> for one month and currently the Japanese buy every Kg they produce
> (1,100T/mt).
>
>
>
> So if this approach was applied to all animal farming would we still need
> to char the manure? and how much further would each ton of charcoal go? If
> we want to start promoting the next revolution in "Carbon Capture Cropping"
> then we need to take a closer look at every thing we've done wrong in the
> past century and that starts from the ground up as David points out!
>
>
>
> I just took some soil, leaf and corn samples from my field trial yesterday
> and I hope to have some data for you in the coming weeks. Attached is a
> photo from our modified seaweed extract + biochar at day66, as I've
> mentioned before NO organic or chemical fertilizer were added to the soil
> only biochar and foliar nutrients.
>
>
>
> For the future of energy production note, Stan Meyer's patent expired July
> this year and already two working models have been produced by open source
> engineering www.h2earth.com . This is in no way to be confused with
> Electrolysis (passing high electrical current through an electrolyte)
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9XrLOudwRw low voltage and low current
> and  this water fuel cell is getting over 400% efficiency. Another sign of
> hope for the future is a water power car in Japan
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1OWDcWoXHs . One thing to note about the
> HHO gas is that it's extremely reactive (Exothermic) and is a perfect gas to
> use in gasification to reduce any waste into H2:CO (syngas) so in the future
> this could take care of the offgas from our charcoal production
> http://www.xogentechnologies.ca/ .
>
>
>
> The point that I tried to raise a few weeks ago is still as relevant, we
> need less talk and more trials!
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Rob.
>
>
>
> *"Just an observation, from my view (Technician) we really need to focus
> on data collection at this point and maybe not worry so much about equipment
> (horse before the cart). The variables as I see them are feedstock's
> (Forest, agriculture and animal waste) then processor (pyrolysis,
> gasification & flash carbonization) then temperature. Now moisture content
> should help determine what feedstock is best suited to what reactor. The big
> variable that as yet remains unanswered is that is the most suitable
> temperature and what with the effect be when the same temperature char is
> used in soil of different pH? I've heard it all, **high temp "V" low temp
> and the most credible information I've received to date is from Robert Hill
> that feedstock appeared to have more on an impact on microbial response then
> temperature but he did note that char make from the flash carbonizer
> appeared to have an extremely beneficial response. **On my own field
> trials I've stuck with 500C and on this years rice hull char I'm getting a
> very positive response. Dr Zhong's student will collect all data from this
> trial and when he processes it I'll pass it on. We need a more practical
> guide for people to follow "Biochar manual" and at this point I don't think
> it has to be based on strictly published data. Note a technician never looks
> for the name of the guy that wrote the training manual, so at this point
> even if you just set up a few pots with and with out char and show us the
> results you'll be doing your part for the "Biochar training manual" *
>
>
>
>
>
> Robert Flanagan
> Chairman & President
> Hangzhou Sustainable Agricultural Food & Fuel Enterprise Co., Ltd.
>
> Skype "saffechina"
> Tel:   86-571-881-850-67
> Cell:  86-130-189-959-57
>
> _______________________________________________
> Terrapreta mailing list
> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
> http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
> http://info.bioenergylists.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org/attachments/20070901/00edfe4e/attachment.html 


More information about the Terrapreta mailing list