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

[lou gold]

Sean, et al,

I believe terra mulata to be man made. Less carbon and pottery suggests
expanding agriculture to me. I have not found specific studies for
reference. Does anyone know of any?

lou

On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 10:11 AM, Sean K. Barry <sean.barry at juno.com> wrote:

>  Terra Mulata is man-made also.`
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Kevin Chisholm <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
> *To:* Sean K. Barry <sean.barry at juno.com>
> *Cc:* lou gold <lou.gold at gmail.com> ; 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<kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
> >
> >     *To:* lou gold <mailto:lou.gold at gmail.com <lou.gold at gmail.com>>
> >     *Cc:* Sean K. Barry <mailto:sean.barry at juno.com<sean.barry at juno.com>>
> ;
> >     terrapreta at bioenergylists.org <mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<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
> >     >
> >
>
>
>
>


-- 
http://lougold.blogspot.com
http://flickr.com/visionshare/sets
http://youtube.com/my_videos
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /attachments/20080408/9b483bfe/attachment-0001.html