[Terrapreta] tipping point

[Kevin Chisholm]

Dear Sean

For heavens sake, Sean, some of us on the list are seeking to understand 
Terra Preta to see if, and how its apparent benefits in the Amazon 
Region can be achieved elsewhere. You seem intent to derail our efforts 
by continued posting of off-topic materials toat seem more intended to 
generate frustration and diversion.

Sean K. Barry wrote:
> Hi 'terrapreta' list,
> Thanks for yet another nice, controversial post, Lou. I can always 
> count on you.

It was not controversial. It was more like a piece of misleading 
rehashed fluff by a writer with a proclivity for sensationalism.
> http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2012
> Somebody please say Bill McKibben is *hysterical *... Kurt, Greg, Kevin?

I found his posting to be a boring, difficult to read and misleading 
disappointment.
> **
> This one is for you, Kevin => 
> http://e360.yale.edu/content/digest.msp?id=1211
>
>
>   e360 digest
>
>
>         05.30.08: Bush Administration Concedes
>         Earth is Warming and Humans are the Cause
>
> Four years late and under court order to issue a report, the Bush 
> administration has officially conceded what scientific studies have 
> long maintained 
> <http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/scientific-assessment/>: The 
> planet is warming rapidly and the burning of fossil fuels is “very 
> likely” the cause. In a report entitled “Scientific Assessment of the 
> Effects of Global Warming,” U.S. government scientists sign on to many 
> of the conclusions reached recently by the Intergovernmental Panel on 
> Climate Change. Though mainstream in its conclusions, the report is a 
> big step for an administration that for years denied the link between 
> human activity and climate change. The report, which was supposed to 
> have been issued in 2004 under the federal Global Change Research Act, 
> says that one upshot of rising temperatures will be greater demands on 
> the energy sector to produce more electricity to cool buildings, 
> industries, and homes, and to pump more water to irrigate crops in a 
> hotter — and often drier — world.

 From what I can see, this is NOT a "World Report", but rather, a "North 
American Report." Its focus is on teh US and North America, and as such, 
it deals with "North American Warming", and not Global Warming.
> Oh, one more thing. I said Dr. Steiner reported 290% improved growth 
> in biomass with charcoal + fertilizer over fertilizer alone. Well, I 
> cannot find the reference. The only one from Dr. Steiner that I did 
> find said, "Plots with charcoal alone grew little, but those treated 
> with a combination of charcoal and fertilizer yielded as much as 880% 
> more than plots with fertilizer alone." from "SCIENCEterra 
> preta1.pdf", available on the 'terrapreta' list site under writings by 
> Steiner.

I think those tests were done as pot tests using clean silica sand as 
the "Plant Support Media". If they used a soluble fertilizer, with teh 
first few waterings, the nutrients would be washed away. Charcoal would 
be expected to hold at least some of teh nutrients, and as such, it 
would be expected that the pots with the charcoal would do better. These 
tests demonstrate the ability of charcoal to capture and hold "passing 
nutrients", but are not a meaningful proof that charcoal will 
significantly increase plant growth under all circumstances. These tests 
are good to dempnonstrate some things, but it is misleading to use their 
results for purposes for which they were not intended.


> I found another document, "Biochar_as_a_soil_amendment_-_a_review.pdf" 
> (attached), that reported some numbers similar to 290% increase in 
> biomass yield, see on page 20 of the document ...
>
> Kishimoto & Sugiura (1985)
>
> Sugi trees on clay loam,
>
> Japan
>
> *0.5 Mgha**-1 **wood charcoal increased biomass 249%*
>
> *0.5 Mgha**-1 **bark charcoal increased biomass 324%*
>
> *0.5 Mgha**-1 activated charcoal increased biomass 244%*
>
> Francoise likes to think I state untruths. Okay, 880% is NOT 290% ... 
> My boo boo. Take the validity of the numbers up with the authors.

I would suggest that the 880% figure is misleading, out of context, and 
not reflective of what a reasonable average grower could expect by 
adding charcoal to his soil.

Kevin
> Regards,
> SKB
>