[Terrapreta] Terrapreta Digest, Vol 17, Issue 20
James Thomas
jthomas at yakama.com
Fri Jun 6 11:32:53 CDT 2008
reply re: actual terra preta practitioners vs arm chair spurts:
I for one am a soon to be terra preta practitioner. I own one acre on
which I and my family of ONE wife and four now grown children produced
most of our own food. We have and continue to use livestock for milk and
meat and eggs, but mostly for manure, which manure when mixed with straw
and/or wood ships and then preferably composted is an excellent organic
fertilizer.
My preference is to do ley crop farming , that is to rotate cropping
with pasture consisting of grasses, legumes and forage weeds. My current
intent is to practice pollarding and coppicing on our shrubs and trees
with scrap wood which is not used for fuel or building material to be
used to make biochar for soil application or putting in the compost. I
am thinking that the next step in addition to biochar is a methane
generator. Speaking from personal experience, a very small farm can be
very productive and economically efficient, which is contrary to popular
opinion.
However, I work full time as a Water Quality Scientist on a large
Indian Reservation. Where my life after hours and my work life converge
is implementing actual conservation on the ground (1.34 million acres)
and in the water, including investigating the possibilities of Terra
Preta for keeping water clean while enhancing soil productivity. Toward
that end I am hopeful of obtaining a grant to investigate the effects of
Biochar addition to soil re: soil conditions and plant productivity and
especially the alleged ability to capture nutrients and other potential
water pollutants.
My hypothesis is that addition of Biochar will greatly supplement other
conservation practices such as rotation with perennial legumes such as
alfalfa and recycling organic matter through soil application. If the
results are anything close to what is hoped for, not only will crop
productivity be improved, but eutrophication from nutrient runoff will
be reduced. The carbon sequestration and biofuel production from
pyrolysis will be essentially gravy.
Where I really see a future for terra preta is empowerment of poor
farmers and villages in tropical (third world) countries via charcoal
for soil additions and biofuel production from pyrolysis. But in the
developed world pollution reduction and carbon management will be the
big selling point. BUT having farmers in developed countries incorporate
biochar as a standard production practice will likely ONLY OCCUR if crop
production benefits accrue.
/jmt.
terrapreta-request at bioenergylists.org wrote:
> Send Terrapreta mailing list submissions to
> terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
>
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> terrapreta-request at bioenergylists.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> terrapreta-owner at bioenergylists.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Terrapreta digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Dumping Char in a hole (Kevin Chisholm)
> 2. SKB's departure's significance for me (geoff moxham)
> 3. Re: Focus ON TOPIC: what can TP do against GW/GCC (Peter Read)
> 4. Re: SKB's departure's significance for me (MFH)
> 5. Sean! Why hast thou foresaken us? (Mark Ludlow)
> 6. Global Warming arguments (Michael Bailes)
> 7. [Terrapreta]
> http://www.thestatesman.net/page.news.php?clid=31&theme=&usrsess=1&id=206962
> (Michael Bailes)
> 8. feeding char residents (Dick Gallien)
> 9. Re: Global Warming arguments (lou gold)
> 10. Re: Global Warming arguments (Kevin Chisholm)
> 11. Re: Global Warming arguments (lou gold)
> 12. Re: Global Warming arguments (Sean K. Barry)
> 13. Poultry Waste Plant (joe ferguson)
> 14. Re: Biogas digesters and Biochar (Greg and April)
> 15. Re: Dumping Char in a hole (Greg and April)
> 16. Re: Global Warming arguments (Greg and April)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 23:46:10 -0300
> From: Kevin Chisholm <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Dumping Char in a hole
> To: Kurt Treutlein <rukurt at westnet.com.au>
> Cc: 'Terra Preta' <terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
> Message-ID: <4848A4F2.5060608 at ca.inter.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Dear Kurt
>
> If we don't advance the cause of New Terra Preta to the point that there
> are palpable benefits in agriculture, then burying it in old mine
> workings is indeed an option.
>
> However, your suggestion makes far more sense...leave the coal in the
> ground and burn the biochar instead. That way, there would be a Carbon
> Negative Benefit:
>
> 1: The fossil coal would remain unburned
> 2: Fossil energy costs associated with biochar production would likely
> be less than fossil energy requirements for an equivalent energy content
> in coal.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Kevin
>
> Kurt Treutlein wrote:
>
>> Hi folkes
>>
>> This is NOT an attack on anyone.
>>
>> Someone just said:
>>
>> "Otherwise, it would be cheaper to simply dump the
>> biochar into a hole in the ground. As coal is taken out of the ground,
>> we could simply backfill with biochar."
>>
>> Others, in the past have said substantially the same thing.
>>
>> It is a concept that bothers me greatly. Somehow there is something
>> perverted about the concept of digging up fossil carbon and replacing
>> it with new carbon. Perhaps it would be better to burn it in a power
>> generator instead and thereby release a lesser amount of fossil carbon
>> into the atmosphere.
>>
>> Better still, use it to make Terrapreta soil :)
>>
>>
>> regards
>>
>> Kurt
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Terrapreta mailing list
>> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
>> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
>> http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
>> http://info.bioenergylists.org
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Text inserted by Panda IS 2008:
>>
>> This message has NOT been classified as spam. If it is unsolicited mail (spam), click on the following link to reclassify it: http://localhost:6083/Panda?ID=pav_281&SPAM=true&path=C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Kevin\Local%20Settings\Application%20Data\Panda%20Software\AntiSpam
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2008 13:54:28 +1000
> From: "geoff moxham" <teraniageoff at gmail.com>
> Subject: [Terrapreta] SKB's departure's significance for me
> To: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org, sean.barry at juno.com
> Message-ID:
> <d0e81e1c0806052054q4bbe19dl6ebea1be41489ebf at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Hi list, moderators,
> I can't believe this debate can get so acrimonious as to lose
> inspirational members.
>
> My dilemma is that I was inspired by many of Sean's passionate
> writings. He inspired me to write, now 7 articles on char for local
> newspapers. As a result of his ideas to sequester one's C footprint in
> the garden each day I developed a 20 litre drum kiln.
>
> Now I am too busy making my own multi-chamber climbing jagama char
> kiln, and eating the 57 pawpaws on just one char-augmented tree... and
> still writing.
> Thanks Sean.
>
> How many list members are connected to the earth, actually out there,
> not armchair terrorprestos, but trying to farm better, AND prepare
> themselves and their communities for the obvious energy depletion on
> all our doorsteps, by developing the technology to gasify wood for
> transport??? I wonder how many armchair 'spurts have a few decades
> watching their tropical peaches bloom earlier each year, for example.
>
> To avoid losing the baby with the bathwater, I could come at requests
> to divide the posts simply into TP philosophy and TP practice.
>
> I wonder if the person who sought to calculate Seans % of the list's
> posts could find what the ratio is of all our posts on TP philosophy,
> compared to TP practice/science?
>
> I would like to see an attempt on this list to converge on TP best
> practice guidelines, for home, farm and industry...
> ...but the URGENCY for this is driven by the sickening AGW we're
> copping. AND also the stupidity of past farming practice that has
> virtually mined our topsoils and flushed the phosphorous into the sea.
> AND also the need to find a sustainable concentrated fuel for
> tractors...wood/charcoal, and the whole fossil-fool
> debate...essential!
> kindest regards
> Geoff Moxham
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2008 17:12:26 +1200
> From: "Peter Read" <peter at read.org.nz>
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Focus ON TOPIC: what can TP do against
> GW/GCC
> To: "Sean K. Barry" <sean.barry at juno.com>,
> <still.thinking at computare.org>, "Greg and April"
> <gregandapril at earthlink.net>, <terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
> Message-ID: <094e01c8c793$f0710dc0$e13d87ca at massey.ac.nz>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> There has been some suggestion that climate change concerns are not based on good science.
>
> I think that Jim Hansen is a highly respected analyst and also a very courageous one having stood up to extreme pressure from the Bush gang to desist from publishing his results.
>
> His latest work (in what I understand is the version that went for peer review) is at http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TargetCO2_20080407.pdf . Try getting your head round it.
>
> He makes it clear that the modelling results are unreliable since they leave out the unknown - you can't model if you haven't got a theory to quantify. So he relies instead a lot on paleo-climatic history - which definitionally includes within the boundaries of historic experience, what we know and what we don't know, including what we don't know we dont know.
>
> In 1939, when Hitler invaded Poland, my parents didn't know whether his plans included bombing our street but they built a bomb shelter - which is just as well since that turned out to be what Hitler did. Mark you, they did know what they didn't know and that knowledge of their ignorance was not seen as a reason to delay action (to paraphrase Article 3.3 of the Climate Convention).
>
> Back in the 70's, NASA scientists controlling the ozone monitoring programme didn't know that ice cryatals formed at high altitudes in the extreme cold of antarctic winter would have a catalytic effect on the capacity of CFC's to destroy ozone. Moreover they didn't know they didn't know it, and refused to believe the evidence in front of their eyes. That took the form of messages from British scientists in Antarctica "hey, we've got an ozone hole down here" - "Damn Limeys again - don't know how to use their instruments" So we got another decade of unnecessary ozone hole enlargement before the theory (the model) was developed to explain what had happened.
>
> Now we have before us evidence of the disappearance of Arctic sea-ice cover, break up of Greenland and Antarctice ice sheets, methane escapes from thawing tundra, etc, etc. Yes, and the Gulf stream slowing up, resulting in colder climate locally for some North Atlantic regions and flower growers, and maybe even a chance of reversal of some of the most threatening processes. Sometimes I think that nature gave us a gentle warning with the ozone hole: whether she will be so kind if we repeat NASA's CFC folly with greenhouse gas folly, just because we don't know we don't know some of the things that she knows, remains to be seen.
>
> So yes, I think Sean has his priorities right even though I don't agree with every word he says
>
> Cheer
> Peter
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: /attachments/20080606/a50314ab/attachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2008 18:17:51 +1000
> From: "MFH" <mfh01 at bigpond.net.au>
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] SKB's departure's significance for me
> To: "'geoff moxham'" <teraniageoff at gmail.com>,
> <terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>, <sean.barry at juno.com>
> Message-ID: <20080606081836.QWGX1196.nschwotgx02p.mx.bigpond.com at mfh>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> In the relatively short time I have been privileged to be a member of the TP
> forum I have enjoyed the stimulus and the partnership greatly.
>
> The whole range of issues is so urgent and complex that passions arise, and
> we'd be the lesser if this wasn't allowed reasonable rein.
>
> There will be diverse opinions. My simple suggestion is for members to argue
> these as passionately as they may feel, but leave acrimony out of the
> 'reply-to-all' button and handle this on an individual basis. I really don't
> need to waste time reading that Paulius thinks Methyr is a dickhead.
>
> Cheers, Max Henderson
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org
> [mailto:terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of geoff moxham
> Sent: Friday, 6 June 2008 1:54 PM
> To: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org; sean.barry at juno.com
> Subject: [Terrapreta] SKB's departure's significance for me
>
> Hi list, moderators,
> I can't believe this debate can get so acrimonious as to lose
> inspirational members.
>
> My dilemma is that I was inspired by many of Sean's passionate
> writings. He inspired me to write, now 7 articles on char for local
> newspapers. As a result of his ideas to sequester one's C footprint in
> the garden each day I developed a 20 litre drum kiln.
>
> Now I am too busy making my own multi-chamber climbing jagama char
> kiln, and eating the 57 pawpaws on just one char-augmented tree... and
> still writing.
> Thanks Sean.
>
> How many list members are connected to the earth, actually out there,
> not armchair terrorprestos, but trying to farm better, AND prepare
> themselves and their communities for the obvious energy depletion on
> all our doorsteps, by developing the technology to gasify wood for
> transport??? I wonder how many armchair 'spurts have a few decades
> watching their tropical peaches bloom earlier each year, for example.
>
> To avoid losing the baby with the bathwater, I could come at requests
> to divide the posts simply into TP philosophy and TP practice.
>
> I wonder if the person who sought to calculate Seans % of the list's
> posts could find what the ratio is of all our posts on TP philosophy,
> compared to TP practice/science?
>
> I would like to see an attempt on this list to converge on TP best
> practice guidelines, for home, farm and industry...
> ...but the URGENCY for this is driven by the sickening AGW we're
> copping. AND also the stupidity of past farming practice that has
> virtually mined our topsoils and flushed the phosphorous into the sea.
> AND also the need to find a sustainable concentrated fuel for
> tractors...wood/charcoal, and the whole fossil-fool
> debate...essential!
> kindest regards
> Geoff Moxham
>
> _______________________________________________
> Terrapreta mailing list
> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
> http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
> http://info.bioenergylists.org
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2008 01:26:15 -0700
> From: "Mark Ludlow" <mark at ludlow.com>
> Subject: [Terrapreta] Sean! Why hast thou foresaken us?
> To: "'geoff moxham'" <teraniageoff at gmail.com>,
> <terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>, <sean.barry at juno.com>
> Message-ID: <07e701c8c7ae$fd303110$f7909330$@com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Sean will return!
>
> As someone who has often dissed him on this List, I, nevertheless, deeply
> appreciate Sean's honorable devotion to his beliefs, (as he is able to
> explicate them).
>
> There will come a time when soldiers (converts, true-believers, martyrs)
> will be in short supply. Sean is who he is. Implicit with modern day char
> usage is the notion that it will provide a countervailing influence to
> increasing fossil fuel combustion. In my opinion, the desirability of
> planting char along with seeds and compost should be a given (first do no
> harm). From this notion may expand the ideas of 1) how to produce char and
> 2) how to use it most productively in an agricultural system. Ultimately,
> these endeavors are two sides of the same coin. But if the interest in char
> as an agricultural amendment is tentative, it's value as an atmospheric
> carbon sequesterant is not.
>
> In the back of our minds, as we (hopefully) accelerate agricultural
> production with optimized char, will remain the idea that we are also
> sequestering carbon. My personal belief is that char should be optimized as
> an agricultural amendment to the point that carbon credits are irrelevant.
> But some sort of cohesive rationale must be expressed for the use of
> agricultural carbon before mainstream agriculture pays attention. Pee and
> Poo only goes so far in a model of broad adoption.
>
> Let's give Sean some slack. Why would we wish to drive someone away from us
> who is so good hearted? He gives his strong opinions, but he receives a lot
> of grief from List members. To his credit, he has no selfish instincts.
> There's room on this list (perhaps we could limit him to 20 posts each day)
> both in bandwidth and generosity of spirit.
>
> What is our individual gain in censuring him? Will we, each of us, be
> stronger from not being subjected to his diatribe? I think not.
>
> Best regards,
> Mark
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2008 22:39:47 +1000
> From: "Michael Bailes" <michaelangelica at gmail.com>
> Subject: [Terrapreta] Global Warming arguments
> To: "Terra Preta" <terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
> Message-ID:
> <7dcba7be0806060539j14e28996n5bac7b289ce83a97 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Some global warming links
> http://geology.com/news/2007/global-warming-cartoon-series-from-npr.shtml
>
> Should we agree to disagree about whether Global warming is a fact or not?
>
> Surely just saving resources (water, fertiliser ) and increased crop
> production is enough to be going on with?
>
> There are so many debates on -line about whether global warming is happening
> or not
> Do we need another here?
>
> Regardless, isn't it wise to husband/save our resources despite the
> predictions of dire gloom?
>
>
More information about the Terrapreta
mailing list