[Terrapreta] Fw: Biochar Packing Strategies

[Kevin Chisholm]

Dear Sean

Terra Preta is an interesting material indeed. It is of interest now for 
two fundamental reasons... agriculture and environmental. Because of its 
many unknowns, it is a puzzle, and is therefore also of great academic 
and scientific interest.

As I see it, the Terra Preta List is not so much an academic or 
scientific forum as it is a forum where people can get enough of a 
familiarity with Terra Preta to use it successfully now. Obviously, we 
cannot use it successfully now unless we know enough about how it works 
to use it effectively. In the Science and Academic Communities, the goal 
is knowledge, while in the practical world, the goal is to get something 
that works. In the practical world, it is not necessary to have Total 
knowledge about how TP works. Empirical knowledge about how to make it 
work is sufficient. "Merely because a cow doesn't understand the 
workings of her 4th stomach is no reason why she shouldn't eat grass."

President Ahmadinejad was invited to Columbia as a Guest. As such he 
should have been given the polite and respectful treatment that is due 
an Invited Guest. Bollinger started off his introduction with all guns 
blazing. Regardless of Adminejad's views, Bollinger was wrong to 
criticize him in the rude, insulting, ignorant, and boorish manner that 
he did. As a consequence, he came across as a two bit, 3rd rate Academic.

While much is known about Terra Preta, much is also not known. I feel 
that most people on the Terra Preta List are here simply because of 
curiosity, or to get sufficient empirical knowledge to test Terra Preta 
in their own circumstances and verify whether or not it is right for 
their situation. We should all be able to present our views and opinions 
about Terra Preta in a positive and constructive manner, and if we 
disagree with the views of another, we should equally present our views 
in a positive and helpful manner. The Readers can take what they want 
for their purposes.

As my Hero Red Green is wont to say: "Keep your stick on the ice, we're 
all in this together." ( http://uufhc.net/s050821.r1.html )

Best wishes,

Kevin



Sean K. Barry wrote:
>  
> ----- 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 ... 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 ... 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