[Terrapreta] Pure Organics Vs. Biological Agriculture

[Sean K. Barry]

Hi Brian,

I read fast?

I didn't know that the "CO2 Science" website published a scientific journal?  Call it "science" all you like, but if it can only "talk the talk", but not "walk the walk", then it is not science, in my humble opinion.

You can all think whatever you like.  This discussion is beyond useless now.  It's counterintuitive and counterproductive to Terra Preta research, anyways.  When Jon Frank said we all want to "fix" soil health and make it release more CO2 than it currently does, so that plants will grow better, well, then I took the bait.  That is not what I see, nor what I want.

Nobody yet can explain to me why in the hell atmospheric CO2 levels are going up and at the same time the plants must be loving it and sucking up all this "amazingly effective aerial fertilizer" called CO2.  Where?  When?   Don't try to tell me anymore about my misunderstanding of plant physiology and how plants use CO2.

Does anybody get how stupid it sounds to say "we need to put charcoal into soil to reduce atmospheric CO2 levels" AND at the same time "we need more of the amazingly effective aerial fertilizer called CO2 in our atmosphere"?

Regards,

SKB
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Brian Hans<mailto:bhans at earthmimic.com> 
  To: Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org> 
  Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 6:38 AM
  Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Pure Organics Vs. Biological Agriculture


  Sean,
  I think you are over reacting quite a bit here. CO2 alone does not make a plant...there are other ingredients, you are correct. But just as by adding more N to the system, a plant will grow more because there is more raw material to work with, same with H2O, same with P, same with K...same goes for CO2. 

  In simple terms why more CO2 = more plant, you can look to the C4 vs C3 fixing mechanism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C4_carbon_fixation<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C4_carbon_fixation>

  The reason plants developed this pathway is to deal with the photorespiration<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photorespiration>  . This is where O2 is fixed instead of CO2 by RuBP and the plant does not make any 'food' for itself and this pathway is virtually 100% energy loss to the plant. More CO2 simply allows for less photorespiration and thus more plant efficiency. How C4's fixed this issues is to remove the dark cycle from the light cycle in distance and time. Dark cycle<http://www.rpi.edu/dept/bcbp/molbiochem/MBWeb/mb2/part1/dark.htm> is where CO2 is fixed into precursors of sugar, known as the carbon fixing cycle. The light cycle<http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/L/LightReactions.html> is where the H2O is split into 2H and 1O. But ofcourse as I explained before, O2 causes photorespiration so the plant removes the CO2 fixing area from the O2 producing area of the plant. This simple removal allows for an increase of efficiency of the C4 system over the C3 cycle GIVEN ALL THING EQUAL. 

  Let me give you concepts from my memory...maybe these will help tho they are not peer reviewed (tho they could be...i just dont have the stuff infront of me).

  -Increased CO2 levels have caused ~ 15% increase of plant efficiency and fixing.

  -There is a concept in biology that the plant is only as efficient as its least available building block. In certain cases, that least available building block is CO2. In all cases below the toxicity levels, more CO2 doesnt hurt and mostly helps. 

  -Algae can uptake up to 13000 ppm CO2 levels causing them explosive growth. I remember numbers of 3000-5000 for terrestrial plants. Above these #'s CO2 toxicity is caused.

  Lastly...Im disturbed by the fact that you asked for peer reviewd papers yet poo-poo'ed them after you got a handfull. You didnt disect them nor did you even have time to read them completely. I think you would do yourself a favor by reading them and understanding what they have to say before you jump all over them yelling 'junk science'. I understand you are worried about CO2 increases in the air, most of us are...but that doesnt mean you have to be chickenlittle <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_Little_(2005_film)>and ignore the facts. 

  Brian Hans



    Why do you think they pose this as a question and they don't just come right out and say the atmospheric CO2 increases are not there, because plants and algae are using it globally as "an amazingly effective aerial fertilizer"?  Why don't farmers just quit using nitrogen, phosphorus, calcium, iron, and all the rest of the nonsense, puny "not amazingly effective" fertilizers and just leave their tractors out pumping CO2 all over the fields, because it is such an "amazingly effective aerial fertilizer"?  

    _______________________________________________
    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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org/attachments/20070920/dfc9e559/attachment.html