[Terrapreta] The Science of Terra Preta Formation Re: Terrapreta Digest, Vol 15, Issue 14

[Sean K. Barry]

Terra Mulata is man-made also.`
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Kevin Chisholm<mailto:kchisholm at ca.inter.net> 
  To: Sean K. Barry<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com> 
  Cc: lou gold<mailto:lou.gold at gmail.com> ; terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org> 
  Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 12:30 AM
  Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] The Science of Terra Preta Formation Re: Terrapreta Digest, Vol 15, Issue 14


  Dear Sean

  Sean K. Barry wrote:
  > Hi Kevin,
  >  
  > I do not think there is any evidence that natural formations of Black 
  > Earth formed in the tropical rainforest in Amazonia.

  There are claims of vast areas of Brazil being covered with "Black 
  Earth". As Lou points out, significant areas of this "Black Earth" are 
  not Terra Preta, but rather Terra Mulata. Some of these  "Black Earth" 
  areas have been studied and have been shown to be Anthrosols. It is the 
  general nature of Archeologists to spend their greatest effort in areas 
  where they are finding items of Archeological significance. One does not 
  expect to find the works of man within natural formations, and 
  consequently, one would not expect Archeologists to study natural 
  formations.
  > Too much rain and very low OM soils predominate the area.  Heavy 
  > nutrient losses during flood season predominate.  That is the natural 
  > state.

  True.
  > There were no reservoirs of "Black Earth" until people built them with 
  > charcoal and wastes.

  Natural Black Earth is one thing. Fertile Terra Preta is another thing 
  entirely. Indeed we have at least the following soil forms:
  * Natural Black Earth, relatively infertile.
  * Natural Black Earth, to which nutrients have been added, as a Farmer 
  would fertilize a field.
  * Terra Preta, probably originating from Natural Black Earth, but to 
  which was added relatively large volumes of charcoal, pottery shards, 
  and nutrients, such that it could be considered a distinct soil form, of 
  Anthropogenic origin.

  >  
  > Indiana in the temperate United States Upper Midwest is a very 
  > different climate than Amazonia.  Soils do not freeze in Brazil like 
  > they do in Indiana.  Soil rich in organic matter in Indiana were peat 
  > bogs or swamp land.  There are few or no peat bogs or swamps in Amazonia.
  > Much more rain and much more water flow over the soil occurs in 
  > Amazonia than in Indiana.

  Are you saying that Black Earth cannot form in Tropical Climates? Before 
  you answer, read up on the formation of coal.
  >  
  > I do not think this is much other than strictly anthropogenic "Black 
  > Earth" in Amazonia.  You do know that "Terra Preta" is Portuguese for 
  > "Black Earth" right?  And, that Portuguese is the official language of 
  > Brazil?  Well, just like AL Gore invented the Internet and called it 
  > the World WIde Web, the Pre-Columbian people who now speak Portuguese 
  > invented Terra Preta (aka Black Earth) on there soil in their 
  > country.  I'm sure most all  of the "Black Earth" found there is 
  > distinctly "Terra Preta" because it is almost for sure ALL synthetic.

  How can you be so certain that significant Black Earth and TM areas in 
  Brazil were not naturally formed?
  >  
  > Without the aid of humans, that climate in the AMazon rainforest just 
  > does not naturally produce black, carbon rich, OM rich, nutrient rich, 
  > fertile soils.

  Terra Preta los Indios is indeed everything you say about it. That is a 
  different matter altogether from a naturally formed Black Earth, that 
  was not of Anthropogenic origin, and that was not enriched with nutrients.

  >   If it did, then the people would have found it that way when they 
  > got there and not had to make any Terra Preta.  Nature would have been 
  > there eons before them, making it for them.

  Nature was indeed there eons before Man, making Black Earth. However, 
  because of lack of organic matter and nutrients, it would be expected to 
  be not very good for growing crops. The basic Black Earth may well have 
  been very amenable to conversion to a fertile soil, with the simple 
  addition of nutrients as would be found in Night Soil.

  Best wishes,

  Kevin
  >  
  > Regards,
  >  
  > SKB
  >
  >     ----- Original Message -----
  >     *From:* Kevin Chisholm <mailto:kchisholm at ca.inter.net<mailto:kchisholm at ca.inter.net>>
  >     *To:* lou gold <mailto:lou.gold at gmail.com<mailto:lou.gold at gmail.com>>
  >     *Cc:* Sean K. Barry <mailto:sean.barry at juno.com<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com>> ;
  >     terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org> <mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>>
  >     *Sent:* Monday, April 07, 2008 10:54 PM
  >     *Subject:* Re: [Terrapreta] The Science of Terra Preta Formation
  >     Re: Terrapreta Digest, Vol 15, Issue 14
  >
  >     Dear Lou
  >
  >     Thanks for your additional inputs...
  >
  >     lou gold wrote:
  >     > Kevin, Sean, et al,
  >     >
  >     > Two considerations that might be important...
  >     >
  >     > 1) There are 2 different Terra Preta de Indios soils: Terra
  >     Preta (TP)
  >     > and Terra Mulata (TM). TP is very black (lots of carbon) but it is
  >     > found only in a small percentage of the region. TM with much less
  >     > carbon is found across a much larger area.
  >
  >     Is it possible that teh original "Black Earth" was much more
  >     fertile and
  >     amenable to cropping than teh TM, and that teh People settled at teh
  >     Black Earth Sites, rather than at the TM sites? Then, if the
  >     Sanitation
  >     Hypothesis was at play, the Black Earth would be upgraded to Terra
  >     Preta
  >     los Indios? Jim Joyner was telling me that there are large areas of
  >     "Black Earth" in Indiana that were useless for cropping, until
  >     they were
  >     treated with very large treatments of Calcium, and tehn they
  >     became very
  >     fertile. Is it perhaps possible that teh TM was a "disadvantaged
  >     Black
  >     Earth that teh Indians could not unlock, as was done in Indiana?
  >     >
  >     > 2) There were possibly millions of people living in these
  >     regions for
  >     > hundreds of years. That number of people could accumulate huge
  >     amounts
  >     > of waste and pottery.
  >
  >     Good point. Is iot possible that when teh content of pottery
  >     shards in
  >     teh TP became excessive, they disposed of tehm elsewhere? For
  >     example,
  >     if dumped in rivers, they could be swept away at flood time.
  >     >
  >     > This suggests to me that humans spread the soil from the dump areas
  >     > close to the residential areas farther and farther away as
  >     population
  >     > increased and the agricultural land expanded.
  >
  >     OK.... if so, there should be pottery shard evidence in these more
  >     distant areas.
  >     >
  >     > Furthermore, to say that the TP regions were perhaps the size of
  >     > France does not necessarily imply that every square centimeter of
  >     > ground was Terra Preta, just that TP and/or TM were prevalent.
  >
  >     True, but the big thing is: How much of that "Black Earth Area" was
  >     natural, and how much was Anthropogenic?
  >
  >     Best wishes,
  >
  >     kevin
  >     >
  >



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /attachments/20080408/5ac88a96/attachment.html