[Terrapreta] Terra Preta de Indio vs. Terra Preta Nova?

[Kevin Chisholm]

Dear Sean

Sean K. Barry wrote:
> Hi Kevin,
>  
> Why don't you think about this in terms that will allow us to ALL 
> promote the development of Terra Preta soils anew, "Terra Preta Nova" 
> for our own reasons?  You can promote TP for agricultural purposes (I 
> agree with his objective, BTW) and others who want to promote TP for 
> other reasons, do not have to have those reasons downplayed by you.

Firstly, what is "Terra Preta Nova"? If we knew how "Terra Preta 
Classic" was made, and where its use would be appropriate, and its 
deficiencies, would it not be easier to compound a "Terra Preta Nova" 
that was at least equal, and possibly superior to the original TP?

Charcoal dumped down a mineshaft is every bit as effective a carbon 
sink, as would be carbon used to make "Terra Preta Nova" (TPN). However, 
if TPN had a proven agricultural benefit, it would be easier to sell as 
a carbon sink, than if it was simply "wasted by dumping down a mine 
shaft." I would suggest that any work done to support the agricultural 
use of charcoal would also be helpful in advancing the case for, and use 
of charcoal for CO2 sequestration. There is no conflict, but rather a 
complementary situation.
>  
> Would that seem fair to you?  Or, are you hell bent on Terra Preta 
> cannot be used for charcoal-in-soil carbon sequestration until it 
> proves itself as an agricultural boon?

There is no question in my mind about the effectiveness of carbon in 
soil as a sequestering method. My questions relate to the circumstances 
where there is an additional agricultural benefit.
>   What is wrong with promoting both potential benefits of Terra Preta 
> before either is realized?

At this stage, we cannot properly promote the use of charcoal in 
agriculture, because we do not know where it is appropriate, and where 
it is inappropriate. More specifically, what evidence or test reports 
could we provide to a Farmer that would convince him to buy charcoal and 
put it on his fields? Unless we have such reports and field trial 
results, it will be difficult or impossible to get a Farmer to spend a 
bunch of money on charcoal.
> Why do you require complete understanding of the historical 
> underpinnings of TP in the Amazon to allow anyone else to make any 
> kind of move on the development of TP without that complete understanding?

The Indians of Brazil have been doing TP for thousands of years. They 
made mistakes and learned things, and evolved something that works. I 
have great respect for things that are proven to work. Now, it might be 
that through trial and error, perhaps over hundreds of years, they found 
practices that are superior, and then finalized on them. On the other 
hand, perhaps Classic TP Technology is trivially simple... merely dig up 
some  black goop from a swamp, add night soil, and things will grow like 
mad. On the other hand, perhaps teh pottery shards were buried in teh 
jungle soil to pick up jungle organisms, to inocculate teh otherwise 
unproductive natural black earths, and in combination with night soil as 
the fertilizer or nutrient source, they would then get a wonderfully 
productive soil.

I don't understand Biodynamic Gardening, and some of their practises 
seem downright silly, when I attempt to fit them into my present 
"Growing Paradigm", or understanding of what is necessary, and 
unnecesary, for good growth. However, since they can get better results 
than I can, they are right, and I am wrong. Perhaps the Brazilian 
Indians of 4,000 years ago were teh original discoverers of Biodynamic 
Gardening Practises? I don't know, but if there was something to suggest 
that they were into Biodynamic Gardening, then other List Members who 
are Biodynamic Gardening Practicioners, could explain TP very easily.
>  
> I can certainly understand that there may be clues to be had about why 
> the Indians made charcoal and how they developed the TP by studying 
> the archaeology of TP in the Amazon. But, since they were not doing it 
> to sequester billions of tons of carbon per year, or even attempted to 
> do that, then why do we need to understand what they did with TP then, 
> in order to want to use it for climate remediation now?

If we can understand how TP is made, and where TP has an agricultural 
benefit, then this will make your job of promoting charcoal for CO2 
sequestration much easier, and bring you success much quicker.

Best wishes,

Kevin
>  
> Regards,
>  
> SKB
>  
>  
>
>     ----- Original Message -----
>     *From:* Kevin Chisholm <mailto:kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
>     *To:* lou gold <mailto:lou.gold at gmail.com>
>     *Cc:* Sean K. Barry <mailto:sean.barry at juno.com> ; terra pretta
>     group <mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
>     *Sent:* Thursday, April 17, 2008 9:30 PM
>     *Subject:* Re: [Terrapreta] Earthen Kiln Conjecture
>
>     Dear Lou
>
>     lou gold wrote:
>     > Kevin,
>     >
>     > I'm curious if you have read the masthead on arclien's (bob's) blog?
>
>     Thanks! (For those who may not have teh address...
>     http://globalwarming-arclein.blogspot.com/ )
>     >
>     > It says:
>     >
>     >
>     > We discuss and comment on the role agriculture will play in the
>     > elimination of the CO2 problem. A model farm template is utilized.
>     >
>     > Is this really the approach that you want to defend?
>     >
>     > Not skeptical but ever curious,
>
>     I think you are asking the wrong question. Whether you or I
>     defend, or
>     don't defend, a particular view or approach is not relevant. Truth,
>     fact, and reality will win out over whatever beliefs we choose to
>     think
>     of as right or wrong.
>
>     Terra Preta intrigues me greatly. However, I see a lot of "loose
>     ends"
>     associated with it, as "Terra Preta" is presently presented. From
>     what I
>     can see, we don't know how it was made, or how much of it was
>     made, or
>     its essential features. Was it perhaps a natural "Black Earth"
>     which the
>     Brazilian Indians started to grow things on, and then improved by
>     adding
>     night soil? Is the charcoal in Terra Preta simply the result of
>     purposeful burns to eliminate weed trees or agricultural waste? Do
>     the
>     pottery shards present in some Black Earths serve any useful
>     function?
>     Were they introduced purposefully, or were they simply the
>     equivalent of
>     "disposed garbage?
>
>     If I took some of the Black Earth from the Holland Marsh near
>     Toronto,
>     Ontario, and added some charcoal and pottery shards, would it then be
>     Terra Preta? Just what is Terra Preta? Is it ONLY a soil that has
>     been
>     worked by the Indians in Brazil at some time in the past, OR,
>     could we
>     take a low nutrient natural black soil that contained black carbon
>     formed from the anaerobic decomposition of vegetative matter, add
>     night
>     soil to it, and get a high nutrient Black Earth that would qualify
>     as a
>     Terra Preta? There is talk about "Terra Preta Nova"... just what
>     is it?
>
>     We have "much ado about nothing", when it comes to buried char and
>     sequestering Carbon. It is "Slam-dunk, case closed, no contest."
>     That is
>     not at all the issue. If you bury carbon, or dump it down a coal mine
>     shaft, of course it sequesters carbon. The issue is if people can
>     make
>     money from agriculture, as a direct consequence of adding charcoal to
>     the soil. First year results reported by Richard Haard, in a
>     temperate
>     climate, so far seem to suggest that the results are marginal.
>     However,
>     his 2nd, 3rd and 4th year results may indeed show it to be
>     advantageous.
>     The Chap in China who reported his first year test results showed
>     very
>     promising results, as also did another List Member from Bolivia.(?)
>
>     If we know the circumstances where charcoal will improve growing
>     results
>     adequately, then perhaps charcoal additions to the soil will take off
>     like wildfire, even without Carbon Credit Subsidies. With time,
>     Carbon
>     Credits may become available for charcoal used in agriculture. The
>     first
>     step, as I see it, is to understand where charcoal is applicable in
>     agriculture. If we knew that, then many other things would fall into
>     place. In particular, it would be very much easier to promote
>     charcoal
>     additions to soil, as a way to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, and to
>     justify Carbon Credits.
>
>     Would you agree that this is a good approach? If not, what would you
>     suggest as a better approach?
>
>     Best wishes,
>
>     Kevin
>
>
>     >
>     > lou
>     >
>     >
>     > On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 11:37 AM, Kevin Chisholm
>     > <kchisholm at ca.inter.net <mailto:kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
>     <mailto:kchisholm at ca.inter.net>> wrote:
>     >
>     >     Dear Sean
>     >
>     >     Sean K. Barry wrote:
>     >     > Hi Robert,
>     >     >
>     >     > Again with this post.  Whatever the Indios did to make
>     charcoal
>     >     out of
>     >     > whatever they used DOES NOT MATTER TODAY!  When are you
>     going to
>     >     grasp
>     >     > this?
>     >
>     >     You have no idea how TP was made, how it was used, how much was
>     >     Anthropogenic, what if anything was the purpose of the
>     shards, whether
>     >     or not the Terra Preta Growing Paradigm is appropriate for
>     temperate
>     >     climates, or whether it is an economically sound growing
>     practise in
>     >     temperate climates,  and you seem to have lost sight of the fact
>     >     that TP
>     >     was configured as part of a food supply system. When are you
>     going to
>     >     grasp this?
>     >     >   Recommending to make charcoal in earthen kilns (in the
>     open air)
>     >     > made from corn stalks is a bad idea.
>     >
>     >     Robert is not recommending to make charcoal in earthen
>     kilns. He is
>     >     simply seeking to understand how the Anthropogenic Terra
>     Preta was
>     >     made
>     >     and used.  When are you going to grasp this?
>     >     >   There is no way to do this without massive releases of
>     >     Methane-CH4,
>     >     > which has been discussed ad-nauseum with you as a significant
>     >     > potential problem with this plan.
>     >
>     >     What plan? Robert is not proposing to make charcoal and
>     smoke out the
>     >     neighbourhood. When are you going to grasp this?
>     >     >   Also, just like there isn't enough corn grown in the
>     world to make
>     >     > enough ethanol to supply the world's thirst for
>     transportation fuel,
>     >     > there IS NOT ENOUGH CORN STALKS IN THE WORLD to make the
>     amount of
>     >     > charcoal we need to form enough Terra Preta and/or make
>     any kind of
>     >     > difference on agricultural food production or global climate
>     >     mitigation.
>     >
>     >     Robert is not advocating making charcoal from corn stalks. When
>     >     are you
>     >     going to grasp this?
>     >     >
>     >     > Move on.  Your past one idea (Earthen Kiln Conjecture) is too
>     >     limited
>     >     > and problematic to be a solution or of any value to us,
>     Robert.
>     >
>     >
>     >     2+2 = 5... Robert's answer could very well be correct. The
>     problem is
>     >     that you are posing the wrong question. Terra Preta, as an
>     >     agricultural
>     >     system in widespread use by the Brazilian Indians, was not
>     >     configured as
>     >     a Carbon Sequestering procedure, or as a system for
>     alleviating the
>     >     level of CO2 in the atmosphere of 2008. When are you going to
>     >     grasp this?
>     >
>     >     > That's my opinion and widely held in this group, I think.
>     >
>     >     I would suggest that your views are widely held by a small
>     faction
>     >     more
>     >     interested in Climate Remediation than understanding and
>     appreciating
>     >     the Real  Terra Preta for what it was, what it is, and what
>     it can be.
>     >     When are you going to grasp this?
>     >
>     >     I would also suggest that your response to Robert's
>     conjecture about a
>     >     portion of the TP puzzle is very unprofessional.
>     >
>     >     Kevin
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>
>
>