[Terrapreta] What is so bad about global warming?

[Maria Stewart]

I find I must respond to these questions regarding the 'shortsighted' question of how will this help financially. Of course growers need that question answered as everyone needs an incentive to get started.
 
The combination of charcoal, rock dust and biologicals has the power to change farming forever. Each can be obtained for peanuts. Working together they can produce food of astonishing flavor and nutrient value. They can be easily found or made anywhere. Large scale growers in the mid-west are being forced out of farming by the ever escalating costs of conventionall methods. Their land is then turned into a 'super' farm of 10,000 acres run by three guys with poison sprayers. This can be turned around by showing them a new way. When charcoal, rock dust and biologicals are put to use, per acre costs can be reduced from 60 dollars an acre to 18. And what they get paid per bushel goes up 30%. Leading by example gets their attention. Conventional farmers are feeling a rising panic as they see the collapse of the way they have been taught to grow food, now is the time to step in. If the dollar is the understood language of the moment, that's the language we will use.
 
Maria
 
 


CC: anaturalresource at gmail.com; friendsofthetrees at yahoo.com; terrapreta at bioenergylists.org; hans at riseup.netFrom: lwilliams at nas.comSubject: Re: [Terrapreta] What is so bad about global warming?Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 16:37:23 -0700To: fteuton at videotron.caFrank--------With appreciation of your comments to this list, I need to question a several points in this posting. This posting leaves some unanswered questions that appear at times on this list.  My points follow your comments below-------Larry 


-----------------------

On Mar 17, 2008, at 7:39 AM, Frank Teuton wrote:

 
Remember that farming is increasingly large scale corporations, with a great deal of experience 'farming the government'...and that all farming occurs more or less within a framework of society in which government plays a key role.
This economy appears to be straining at this moment to not go into "a very great  depression". This weekend the 15th and 16th of March look very ominous for social, political and economic stability. Do consider what these events bode for the future when you say that " farming is increasingly large scale corporations" and "all farming occurs more or less within a framework of society in which government plays a key role". I will agree that your point has been true and is current true, at this moment. This weekend the stock market went to the edge of a meltdown and we have to wait and see is it was prevented. See: Debt Rattle, " Full global impact phase..."  and "Why Washington’s rescue cannot end the crisis story" . How are we to finance the production of charcoal if investments (and credit lenders) are in trouble over excessive leveraging?

 
If charcoal incorporation into soil has an actual horticultural/agronomic benefit which supports it on its own terms in a particular application, so much the better;
I cannot offer scientific proof that what was accomplished in the Weber grill will support Terra Preta nova but I can offer you a visual of the humble grilling technique that may indicate an avenue for further research for those with means to do so. These pictures, I believe, are part of the TP nova  puzzle. The Swiss Chard was 42" high. Considerably larger plants than were grown in previous years. The charcoal was placed in a garden soil that is very rich in organics including seaweed and local rock dust (Nooksack River, Mt Baker, WA, USA). There may be a limiting factor that the charcoal overcame. See charcoal pics with plant and fungal roots and charcoal makings (also)and charcoal farming pics.


but, where it offers little or no benefit 
If we do not fully appreciate the benefits of our charcoal makings then how do we know when "little or no benefit" occurs. Could you explain please, where do you see no benefits?

except in the global sense the farmer (corporate or familial) will need for the larger society to recompense him for his cost of incorporation. Indeed, where charcoal incorporation offers no benefit it might be best to just dump it into an old mine shaft at lower cost than agricultural application, right?
There are many ways that charcoal does not work after it has been placed in the soil. As a landscape gardener, I frequently uncover buried charcoal while doing drainage work on residential properties. See these three pics (one, two and three). These pieces of soil and charcoal were located about 4" below the lawn surface and could be up to 90 years old. This is the age of the house and the charcoal may be related to the land clearing operation for the house. These photos do not show any fungal or plant root involvement. The obvious reason is soil compaction... foot compaction? My point in this example is that burying charcoal in the ground doesn't means it benefits plants. It appears that newly made charcoal needs to be wetted, fertilized, inoculated and, at some point, sized to the specific application. Of course, foot compaction may likely prevent biological activity.

To answer your question about the mine shaft... please your knowledge of how to use charcoal is greater than dumping it down a mine shaft. Give it to gardeners or farmers first. Let them pick it up at no cost to you.


 
I think we all need to realize that this concept is still very much in the R&D phase and adjust our rhetoric accordingly.
Yes, we are in a R&D phase need to adjust our priorities accordingly if we are to pull a rabbit out of this hat... ah, bundle of troubles. Is there any question that the environment will rule human economics? Are we on the same "cooperative" page or are we isolated islands in competition in a quest for profits sans commonweal?-------Larry


 
My two cents,
 
Frank Teuton

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Kevin Chisholm 
To: Sean K. Barry 
Cc: Miles Tom ; Pilarski Michael ; Toch Susan ; Baur Hans 
Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 11:03 AM
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] What is so bad about global warming?
Dear SeanSean K. Barry wrote: 


Hi Kevin,
 
The key question is: "What business do you want to be in?"If you want to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, then that is one thing, but if you want grow things, than that is a different matter ...
 
Why should I be limited to only that line of sight?  I can walk and chew gum at the same time.  I see the synergy of doing ALL of mining CO2 from the atmosphere to make charcoal for TP style charcoal-in-soil and growing things in TP-like soils attempts and helping others to do the same.Before you get into any Business, you must define that Business, and see a route to attaining the Business Goals. If my Business Objective is "Grow Turnips and Make Money", I might be able to do this, and I might proceed. If my Business Objective was "Grow Turnips, Sequester Carbon and Make Money", and if the actions of sequestering carbon were revenue neutral or revenue positive, then I would far prefer this route. If sequestering carbon was revenue negative to me, then I would not do it. Perhaps you can find ways to make money sequestering carbon. Perhaps for philosophical reasons, you may even decide to include carbon sequestering in your Business Plan, even if it results in an incremental loss of profit. That is fine... it is up to you, because it is your business.


 
If your objective is to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, then OK. If my objective is to grow things more efficiently, with greater yields, and at lower cost, fossil carbon emissions are a secondary consideration.
 
What if past fossil carbon emissions and continuing present day fossil carbon emissions begin to effect things like: reduced annual average rainfall in your area, increased annual average temperature, longer sustained droughts, climate migration, the cost of energy to run your farming equipment, the cost and performance of fertilizers on your farm, etc?    Then will fossil carbon emissions be more of a consideration?As a Small Grower, I cannot afford to be a Missionary. The above points would be a worry or a concern, but I would not spend money to alleviate them.

 
"What can Terra Preta do for my farm now?" sounds only like a greedy, short sighted, only myself supporting approach.  It would have sounded so much nicer if you said Small Growers must first stick to profitable business, so that they will still be around to do good over the long term. :-) Remember the very wise observation "The Second Mouse Gets the Cheese."

Good for you and not necessarily good enough for the rest of us, perhaps? Would you get into a Business that sequestered carbon, at a loss to the business? 

There isn't just one pie and surely you will get yourself a piece.  The world has more than enough to go around when we all learn to share in it.  No one will take yours away.When we learn how to make money from Terra Preta, then I am sure it will come into widespread acceptance. If the Person or Company making or using TP can't make money off it, TP will not get done. Lets find ways to show the World how to make money off Terra Preta.Best wishes,Kevin



_______________________________________________Terrapreta mailing listTerrapreta at bioenergylists.orghttp://bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/terrapreta_bioenergylists.orghttp://terrapreta.bioenergylists.orghttp://info.bioenergylists.org
_______________________________________________
Terrapreta mailing list
Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
http://info.bioenergylists.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /attachments/20080318/f8c99297/attachment.html