[Terrapreta] Earthen Kiln Conjecture

[lou gold]

Kevin,

I don't want to get into defending a bunch of things. Since I'm not an
expert my better path is to wait for the truth to emerge from the collective
curiosity and investigation.

I do want to suggest the possibility that the question is not whether terra
preta will improve agricultural productivity in temperate zones but a
somewhat different more nuanced question. Tropical regions do not have poor
soils so much as they have soils that are leached quickly of their nutrients
once the the root under-structure and organic debris above-ground structures
are lost through deforestation. It seems to me that the value of the
charcoal lies in its ability to hold and retain nutrients and
micro-organisms. I strongly suspect that the value of the pottery shards is
that they contribute structure and spaces in a fine tropical soil that would
tend to compact and become less permeable (with homes for all kind of
nutrients) or simply wash away under the impact of heavy rains.

What might the value be in temperate zones with better soils?
It could easily be less fertilizer use, which in an age shortages of cheaper
forms of fossil fuels, might be a big advantage. AND, the carbon
sequestration potential is very meaningful in the temperate zones where the
industrially advanced countries are concentrated. The carbon sequestration
angle is  important because it might allow these countries to reap benefits
from a carbon market for the improvement of their own agricultural
practices. Even though it might not show immediate increase in productivity
it might slow soil and/or nutrient loss through erosion and leaching, retain
moisture better, contribute to building future fertile soils, filter for
cleaner runoff water and help establish new protocols for sustainability
when combined with other best practices.

The above are not small advantages. The question is how to make the charcoal
amendment practice economically feasible or, better yet, attractive. I
personally believe that credit for carbon sequestration holds the answer to
that challenge.

If I understand you correctly, you don't want to lessen the significance of
promoting an improved agriculture. You believe that the link to global
warming makes the argument for charcoal amendment weaker. I do not. But I
believe that I'm looking at something else that you might not be
considering. Charcoal made from waste -- agricultural, municipal or whatever
-- has value also as fuel. So there will be competition as to whether
agriculture or energy is a more profitable use of the char. The carbon
sequestration angle can tip the financial system toward better agricultural
productivity rather than toward better energy consumption. I think that this
is a huge advantage and a most desirable outcome.

I further believe that the reciprocity of designing a system  for soil
health combined with less pollution of water and air can lead us from ages
of scarcity and depletion into an age of abundance and renewal in which
there is a better balance between large human populations and the earth. To
me this is the much touted and poorly understood paradigm shift that we've
been waiting for -- one that ends the war of future progress destroying past
benefits and ushers in an ancient/future solution. This is way beyond
anything that might be measured now. It's just a possibility -- a new dream
of the earth -- that I unabashedly put forth as a lovely vision.

Please don't ask me to prove any of this. Proof is as important for me as it
is for you. But the role of producing it lies in the hands of others better
equipped than I am. I am simply offering a vision that needs further
confirmation before it receives widespread application.

That my best shot.

hugs and blessings.

lou

On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 11:30 PM, Kevin Chisholm <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
wrote:

> 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>> 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>


-- 
http://lougold.blogspot.com
http://flickr.com/visionshare/sets
http://youtube.com/my_videos
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /attachments/20080418/460117ed/attachment.html