[Terrapreta] Terra Preta de Indio vs. Terra Preta Nova?
Sean K. Barry
sean.barry at juno.com
Fri Apr 18 00:46:09 CDT 2008
Hi Kevin,
"Terra Preta Nova" just means the development of new TP soils, anew, made now in the 21st century. "Terra Preta Classic", as you call it (good name), was developed by humans circa ~7000 to ~4500 years ago (14th to 17th century). I don't think humans just found it. I think they made it, but I don't care to debate that.
"Terra Preta Nova" can attempt to repeat "Terra Preta Classic". But, is doesn't have to, does it? For your purposes, maybe it does. But, in general, "Terra Preta Nova" can be done with other 21st century properties in mind, other than growing food (which of course, one can do that too, right?). That said, you can go on discussing and doing what you are doing and I can do the same, plus we can both promote "Terra Preta Nova".
An agricultural benefit to producing charcoal would add value to a charcoal product, to be sure. But consider that 1) charcoal, 2) combustible fuel and heat energy to replace dwindling, more costly fossil fuels, 3) improved atmospheric and climate conditions, with less pollution from fossil fuel burning, less CO2, lower annual global average temperatures, less deadly hurricanes and tornadoes, less often, 4) energy independence from foreign oil, and 5) probably employment opportunities for hundreds of millions or even billions of people all over the world all from just the carbonization of biomass and sequestration into soil of the charcoal by product. Now that is hand full of potential benefits to producing charcoal, right? Even without using it for agriculture benefits or in agriculture on a wide scale immediately. Still one can be making charcoal to put into soil ("Terra Preta Nova" for 21st century uses and benefits) and also just be trying to develop that added value (agricultural benefits) and make the TPN like the TPC (or TPdI). Right?
That is a good question about why Biodynamic Gardeners (or maybe permaculturists?) cannot explain why Terra Preta works. Thanks for wishing my job were easier, Kevin. You are on a different tack than I am, though, if you know what I mean. You and Robert both seem to do a lot of guessing and "surmising" about historical possibilities, with scant archaeological data. I am trying to build a machine that does some specific things, here, now. We do things differently and are doing different things. The history and archaeological record of Terra Preta de Indio only holds the existence of charcoal put into the soil for me. That observable fact, alone, was enough to have sparked the thought in me that charcoal put into the soil can do global climate remediation. That alone can and has motivated me.
Like you, I do not need to know how the Indians used TPdI to make food grow in their poor soils. That is a different and perfectly respectable other tack with this "Terra Preta Nova" project, right? I'm figuring you are working on the same TPN project as me, since we are both in the 21st century doing our respective "schticks", right?
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<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 11:18 PM
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Terra Preta de Indio vs. Terra Preta Nova?
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<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>> ; terra pretta
> group <mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<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/<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<mailto: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
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /attachments/20080418/af69f812/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Terrapreta
mailing list