[Terrapreta] What's Up Doc?

[Mark Ludlow]

Dear Kevin,

I think that you frame the discussion very well. As you suggest, the role of
Terra Preta in carbon sequestration is hardly debatable; anthropomorphic
deposits have been in place for centuries. Hardly an epochal existence, but
enough to transcend our common near-horizon time scale.

There's a certain fascination with 'wisdom of the ancients' that prejudices
our thinking against more random or spontaneous generation. Were these
Amazons inordinately wise? Just lucky? Or did the ritual sacrifice of
earthenware pottery provide a catalytic thrust?

Let the Ph.D. thesis writers argue this and enlighten the rest of us. It's
fascinating stuff, but not at all essential to determining the value
proposition for adding char to soil. Is soil productivity enhanced with char
addition? In what time-frame? At what cost? (The mass-balance equations for
atmospheric removal of CO2 are trivial.)

Personally, I want more meat and less potatoes. We should (my opinion) be
focused on honing-in on the essential point of argumentation: does a Terra
Preta model make sense for an out-of-balance World? By out-of-balance, I
refer to both excess atmospheric carbon and unsustainable agriculture. We
have to succeed on both fronts if we expect to continue merrily upon our
way.

The agronomists should be driving this discussion. Someone mentioned that
USDA agencies were clueless. Are we, maybe, clueless? It takes a True
Believer to be a crusader for char, but any one of us can arm ourselves with
the facts. Are there so few facts that discussion inevitably must digress
into polemical excursions about hypothetical origins of TP or (inevitably)
discussions of the reality/genesis of Global Warming?

This List has some great minds. How can we tune the discourse so that we are
additive, not just recreationally argumentative?

Best regards,
Mark



-----Original Message-----
From: terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org
[mailto:terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Kevin Chisholm
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 7:31 PM
To: lou gold
Cc: terra pretta group
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>> 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
>
>
>
>



_______________________________________________
Terrapreta mailing list
Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
http://info.bioenergylists.org