[Terrapreta] Fw: Biochar Packing Strategies

[Sean K. Barry]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Sean K. Barry<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com> 
To: Kevin Chisholm<mailto:kchisholm at ca.inter.net> 
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 10:42 PM
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Biochar Packing Strategies


Hi Kevin,

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran visited Columbia University and made a speech calling into question whether the German "ancients", (circa 1941-1946 AD) were trying to use Jewish people as the predominant feedstock for making Terra Preta in Poland and Austria.

The President of Columbia University, Lee Bollinger, did not like Ahmadinejad's view that the Holocost did not "really" happen.  He does not like Ahmadinejad's views on modern day Israel either.  He protested that the man came to a USA University in New York State and said the things he said to an audience WHO DOES NOT AGREE WITH Ahmadinejad's views.  Do you blame him?  Do YOU think the Holocost is a fable or an unproven hypothesis?

Archeaological evidence in Poland and Austria will show unequivocally that the German Military, lead by Adolf Hitler, did indeed incinerate PEOPLE and bury their charred remains into the ground.  They did not completely burn the Jewish people, because it wasted fuel.  They were inflamed until they were charred only (low temperature, lots of volatiles).

Lee Bolligner held his tongue!  I would be honored to be related to him.

Now, as to Robert Klein ... I don't think he reads.  I do read, extensively.  I have Johannes Lehmann's book, "Amazonian Dark Earths: Origins, Properties, Management".  You should buck up the $229 and get it.  All of what I will now say to argue against Robert's incorrect musings is supported by what is written in that book, which was developed over many years, by many more qualified people than by "gosh by golly" Robert Klein.

Amazonian Dark Earths, aka Terra Preta were formed in the Amazon RAINFOREST.  The identifying characteristics of the soil sites are; 1) high concentration of carbon, much higher than in surrounding soils (60+ times), 2) identifiable anthropogenic materials; pottery sherds, fish bone, other human artifacts, evidence nearby, man made elevated roads, etc., and 3) increased plant nutrient content in the soil (+greater soil organic matter content and enhanced fertility).  All ADE sites exist only around what verifiably were human settlements.  Many people lived near the sites and ate the foods produced on the land there.

This is the important point here, Kevin ... Are you watching?  ADE cannot be formed if nutrient losses exceed inputs.  Even if all of the corn stover (the wastes from a "food" crop) were put back into the soil as charcoal, the nutrient loss from farming the soil and then people eating the corn, would NOT create ADE.  The nutrient losses would exceed the inputs from putting the charred stover back into the soil.  The source of the charcoal in ADE had to come form a larger area, from a different place than the plants on the site.  The source of the charcoal in ADE is assumed to be from both primary forest and secondary forest around the settlements.
There are not enough nutrients in just fish bone and the night soil and all of the organic wastes from the crop.  Nutrient inputs MUST exceed losses.  Even if it was illegal to not shit in the fields, or to not throw all of the organic compost garbage in the field, there could NOT be formation of ADE.  The higher nutrient inputs had to come from other plants.

"Swidden" agriculture is when a plot of land is cleared for farming, by burning away the vegetation.  This is widely practiced to this day in South America.  It is a pronounced problem.  Ask Lou Gold.  Ask Johannes Lehmann.  Ask Christoph Steiner.  They have all stood there in Brazil and seen this.  This is not a sustainable method of agriculture.  You must know that the ancient Amazon people could not add industrial fertilizers to their fields.  THERE WERE NONE!  Today, the people who "slash and burn" to farm, cannot afford adding fertilizers.  When the plot is worn out, i.e. has no more fertility, has no more nutrients, because they have been lost to the crops, then they move on.  They are not, nor could not form ADE even, if they charred all the wastes from their crops.  Neither could the ancient Amazonians have done this.  The nutrients are lost to the harvested crops!

So, they had to put charcoal in from plants that came from somewhere else other than the ADE site.  They had to put in charred biomass that had more nutrients in it then they took out.  They had to throw in night soil, fish guts, fish bones, and charred biomass from other places, than the plot they were making ADE on.  They did not practice swidden agriculture.  They would not have been able to stay in one place (which they did, building settlements and forming ADE for centuries), unless they got the biomass to make the char from a bigger area then they were making ADE on.

It has been verified by pollen analysis of the ADE, that it contains palms (not corn stover), possibly house thatch (Sombroek et. al. 2003).  That is from the book, too.

I am repeating myself.  This is NOT my theory.  It is one developed by hundreds of other people who have the skills to study these kind of things; historical anthropologists and soil scientists.  Since I am neither, I just choose to research their work, read it, and not make shit up as I go along, like Robert Klein seems to do.

Now, ... Methane-CH4 from slow charring in dirt mounds.  It happens.  

Look here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane<about:blank> ... It says (and this is not the only source which says this):

"Methane in the Earth's atmosphere is an important greenhouse gas with a global warming potential of 25 over a 100 year period. This means that a 1 tonne methane emission will have 25 times the impact on temperature of a 1 tonne carbon dioxide emission during the following 100 years."

He has not done this yet, but he does promote the large scale practice of it!  "50 times on every acre of every corn field!"

Robert IS wrong about suggesting that Methane-CH4 is not a problem from "open air" smoldering of biomass to make charcoal.  Ask Michael Bailles.  Ask Stephen Joseph.  Ask Tom Miles.  Ask Adriana Downey.  Ask me again!

Hug reality, Kevin, ... not musings, not ponderings, not dreams, not guesses.

Regards,

SKB


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Kevin Chisholm<mailto:kchisholm at ca.inter.net> 
  To: Sean K. Barry<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com> 
  Cc: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org> ; code suidae<mailto:codesuidae at gmail.com> 
  Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 7:24 PM
  Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Biochar Packing Strategies


  DEear Sean

  Sean K. Barry wrote:
  > Dear 'terrapreta' list members,
  >  
  > Robert Klein has posted (again) his assertion that corn stalks were used 
  > as the primary feedstock by the ancient Amazon people to make the 
  > original Terra Preta soils.  This is entirely conjecture.  For anyone to 
  > say "... as proven by pollen analysis" is just baloney.

  Why do you feel his hypothesis is not viable? Can you suggest a better 
  and more rational hypothesis?

  > There was certainly lots of other potential biomass in the Amazon 
  > rainforest.  The existence of corn pollen there *now* says nothing about 
  > the feedstock used circa 2500 to 500 years ago.  Making a point out of 
  > saying it was corn really doesn't even matter.
  >  
  > Robert then extrapolates this to claim to say that all we need to do is 
  > just start piling up corn stalks in "packed" mounds on fields, light 
  > them afire with hot coals dropped through the top of the pile, and start 
  > making charcoal as fast as we can.  He has some idea that the root ball 
  > and soil disks at the bottom of the stalks can just be yanked out of the 
  > ground and piled up, dirt clods to the outside, enclosing the stalks 
  > inside a dirt mound.
  >  
  > Open air burning in a dirt pile, with no flames is absolutely the worst 
  > way to make charcoal from any biomass.  Without flame, the pile will 
  > conservatively exhaust 3% of the carbon from the biomass as Methane-CH4 
  > gas.  Robert does not listen to this.  I think, this is because he is 
  > unwilling to acknowledge the chemistry of pyrolysis, and/or the problem 
  > with Methane-CH4 as a potent green house gas in the Earth's atmosphere.
  >  
  > Releasing 3% Methane-CH4 during biochar production will definitely be 
  > more of a detriment to the atmosphere, than the benefit if even all of 
  > the rest of the biomass carbon was left in the charcoal.  That would 
  > not occur, either, because a dirt wall kiln will still allow in enough 
  > air that much of the biomass carbon will burn completely into CO2.  
  > Smoldering, it will release copious amounts of toxic gases like Carbon 
  > Monoxide - CO and Methane-CH4.  It could easily disable or even kill 
  > anyone standing to close.

  Most people can figure out that they should stand upwind of a fire, if 
  their IQ is equal to, or grater than their age..
  >  
  > The worst part of Robert's postings is that he does not listen, read, or 
  > try to learn anything.  He ignores what I an others have said about 
  > Methane-CH4.

  Goodness Gracious!! The gall!! :-)

     He'd rather spout off about how everyone agrees with his
  > grand plan and his analysis and then go write on his blog that we here 
  > on the 'terrapreta' list are ALL in agreement with him?  Well, I don't 
  > agree!  Lots or people on this 'terrpreta' list don't agree with him, 
  > either. 

  This is conjecture on your part.

    He is still saying we do on his blog.  He says so again in his
  > most recent posting ...
  >  
  >  >In my last post,
  >  >
  >  >http://globalwarming-arclein.blogspot.com/2007/09/developing-biochar-protocols.html
  >  >
  >  >we arrived at the conclusion that the one key crop
  >  >that can make biochar production feasible for
  >  >agriculture is corn. It is also apparent that a
  >  >naturally built stack without much work will produce
  >  >some biochar, ...
  >  
  > This is total LIE!  AGAIN!  I wish he would quit doing that!

  And I wish you would provide a better hypothesis, or show where he is 
  wrong with fact and evidence, not just your own opinion.
  >  
  > Look here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane> ... It says (and this 
  > is not the only source which says this):
  >  
  > "Methane in the Earth's atmosphere is an important greenhouse gas with a 
  > global warming potential of 25 over a 100 year period. This means that a 
  > 1 tonne methane emission will have 25 times the impact on temperature of 
  > a 1 tonne carbon dioxide emission during the following 100 years."
  >  
  > What Robert proposes is a seriously bad idea.  I guarantee you, that if 
  > this was ever tried, the the Environmental Pollution Control Agency 
  > (EPA) would immediately show up and levy some heavy fines.

  Under what section would they charge him?
     It is
  > illegal in every state in the USA to knowingly release Methane-CH4 gas.  
  > Lots of dirt-mound, root ball, walled in kilns will be a ecological 
  > disaster, if enacted on any large scale.

  Who said anything about large scale?

  > He CANNOT do this.  He should stop promoting this idea.  It is senseless 
  > and would be dangerously bad for the environment.

  How many man-years of Amazonian Indians running around their corn fields 
  making char would it take to equal the the CO2 equivalent of a standard 
  600 MW coal fired power plant?
  >  
  > At 'terrepreta', I think we do want to develop *clean *ways to make 
  > charcoal from the biomass of agricultural waste in agricultural fields.  
  > I think this is a reasonable objective.  This plan of Robert's does not 
  > accomplish that objective.  He needs to cease promoting this and he 
  > should join us in developing some other viably workable methods.  At the 
  > very least, Robert, you need to quit writing that we all agree with you 
  > about this.

  So, who else disagrees with his basic hypothesis?

  Best wishes,

  Kevin

  PS: Are you any relation to that Bollinger Dude from Columbia?
  >  
  > SKB
  > 
  >     ----- Original Message -----
  >     *From:* code suidae <mailto:codesuidae at gmail.com<mailto:codesuidae at gmail.com>>
  >     *To:* terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
  >     <mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>>
  >     *Sent:* Wednesday, September 26, 2007 4:06 PM
  >     *Subject:* Re: [Terrapreta] Biochar Packing Strategies
  > 
  >     On 9/26/07, Robert Klein <arclein at yahoo.com<mailto:arclein at yahoo.com>
  >     <mailto:arclein at yahoo.com<mailto:arclein at yahoo.com>>> wrote:
  >      > But I think that we can all agree that a stalk of
  >      > biomass with a brick attached is a great start. As
  >      > good as a box of Leggo.
  > 
  >     Interesting idea. However, in all the harvested corn fields I've ever
  >     seen the part of the stalk still attached to the roots is perhaps a
  >     foot long and many are broken off near ground level. I suspect that in
  >     order to get material suitable for this method you would have to
  >     either harvest by hand or invent something gentler than a combine.
  > 
  >     Thinking out loud:
  >     After harvesting you'd have to collect the stalks and carry them to
  >     the burn location. For a 1/5th acre plot that's on the order of 6000
  >     plants to move. With a couple of pounds of dirt attached to each one a
  >     worker would be limited to moving perhaps 2 or 3 dozen plants at a
  >     time for around 200 trips. Assuming reasonably quick workers you're
  >     looking at 1 day per acre for a 5 man crew (4 gathering, 1 stacking).
  > 
  >     Presumably this would be one-time or very rare activity which could be
  >     accomplished over many years. Each year you could set aside some
  >     number of acres to be harvested by hand (or special machine) to allow
  >     this sort of processing. It wouldn't even be necessary to wait until
  >     after harvest, you could pull them, allow them to dry, then char the
  >     whole plant.
  > 
  >      > I see two strategies. One in which a windrow is build
  >      > with one side forming an earthen wall. [...] A second
  >      > windrow can then be build against the first
  >      > windrow on the non walled side.
  >      > The second strategy is to lay out a 12X12 square [...]
  > 
  >     I wonder if it would be practical to do a dome? It seems like the sort
  >     of thing you'd really have to be out in the field working on to see
  >     how the stalks behave.
  > 
  >     Rather than packing dirt over the top of anything it seems like it
  >     would be much more efficient, in terms of labor cost, to have large
  >     reusable covers. You'd stack up the stalks then drop a lightweight
  >     nonflammable plate on top. You could perhaps adjust vents in the cover
  >     to control the burn rate.
  > 
  >     I'm picturing companies that hire seasonal labor to do the work and
  >     that move from area to area contracting with land owners as they go. A
  >     crew could be kept busy for most of the growing season.
  > 
  >      > Observe that we have minimized the labor input
  >      > throughout.
  > 
  >     Well, I don't know about that, compared to any mechanized harvesting
  >     it is a huge amount of labor, but amortized over the period when the
  >     char is effective it is small.
  > 
  >      > From the perspective of sequestering carbon, we want
  >      > this done twenty to fifty times. From the perspective
  >      > of building a viable soil base, several times should
  >      > be more than ample.
  > 
  >     I haven't the slightest idea how much char you could expect to get
  >     from an acre of corn in a year. I'd suppose that you could do the same
  >     acre at least twice and maybe three times a year (no need to wait for
  >     mature ears, just give it 6 weeks or so to get big enough to provide
  >     the most char per season).
  > 
  >     But 50 times? Surely at some point there is a concentration of char at
  >     which agricultural performance begins to drop off or some other
  >     undesirable effect comes into play? Beyond that point you'd have to
  >     leave the char in a pit or disturb the topsoil to incorporate it
  >     deeply.
  > 
  >     Dave K
  >     -- 
  >     "Our ignorance is not so vast as our failure to use what we know." -
  >     M. King Hubbert
  > 
  >     _______________________________________________
  >     Terrapreta mailing list
  >     Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org> <mailto: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/>
  > 
  > 
  > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
  > 
  > _______________________________________________
  > 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/>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org/attachments/20070926/7e55a2db/attachment-0001.html