[Terrapreta] Fwd: Google Alert - "terra preta "

[Brian Hans]

Sean et al,
   
  First let me address this statement "Does anyone know the difference in tons of carbon per hectare between "corn rows" and a forest of 350' tall tropical rainforest trees?". If you look at the forest in any given year, ofc the forest holds more carbon but that ignores the y/y yields of carbon. Certainly, a hectare of corn y/y is more productive at yielding a 'carbon crop' than forest, even the fastest of growing trees and certainly much much more productive than '350ft tall rainforest' (yes even faster than bamboo). 
   
  I have no doubt that tree carbon was the main source of terra preta. Population density in the forest at the time of 'terra preta man' makes it quite easy to see where the vast majority of the carbon came from. My point wasnt that they charred stover and called it good, my point was what happened to their precious crop? Standing stover makes it hard to plant into the following year, especially with handtools. Did they rotate? Did they chop the stover and feed it to humans (nope) or feed to domesticated animals (highly unlikely)? So what happened to the stover? 
   
  Just to ramble on even more...IMO, the future of terra preta is not in forests or wood but in ag production waste streams like stover and manure and other sources of carbon from 'green' material. Woody biomass is becoming too valuable to char but waste streams like stover turns into virtually 100% CO2 without some sort of fixing.  
   
  Brian Hans
   
   
   
  
"Sean K. Barry" <sean.barry at juno.com> wrote:
            Hi Brian,
   
  Does anyone know the difference in tons of carbon per hectare between "corn rows" and a forest of 350' tall tropical rainforest trees?
  Which one is bigger?  Which does anyone think is more likely to have been the most prevalent plant form in the Amazon Tropical Rainforest, then (2500 years ago) or now; "rainforest trees", or "corn rows"?  Did the continent of South America move into the area from outside the tropics, in around 2500 years ago?
   
  I think these questions and probably some others would lead one to question "highly" the possibility that corn was used to make the bulk of the charcoal, rather than trees.
   
  This is just my opinion?
   
  SKB
   
   
    ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Brian Hans 
  To: Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org 
  Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 9:03 PM
  Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Fwd: Google Alert - "terra preta "
  

  http://www.olis.oecd.org/olis/2003doc.nsf/43bb6130e5e86e5fc12569fa005d004c/f70b80eb7cd25728c1256d57003e5f0c/$FILE/JT00147699.PDF
   
  Some light botanical reading on corn. 
   
  A few 'corn off topic' notes;
   
  Notice where they talk about perennial relation to corn. I cannot believe someone hasnt been able to cross that perennial line with corn, seeing how much work is done on corn itself. My guess is that type of research is scratched for future economic reasons by the big guys. Imagine the world if corn was a perennial... 
   
  I studied botanical taxonomy @ UWMadison and Iltis is convinced of the 'teosinte' theory and he is a mountain of a man @ UWMadison, so who am I to argue. 

  Notice how important corn really is to the human diet. It makes alot of sense that we would try to make ethanol with it...just as anyone plays with their food they are swimming in. 
   
  Putting yourself into the shoes of pre-modern man, every part of the crop would have been utilized. Im curious as to how they handled the stover. If 'terra preta man' infact had corn stover...it seems plausable that stover was apart of the making of char. Remember that stover is a good 'carbon crop' and certainly it was used in ancient times as such. 
   
  Brian Hans




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org/attachments/20070907/efbf8fbe/attachment.html