[Terrapreta] Terrapreta Digest, Vol 16, Issue 25

[Mark Ludlow]

His Sean,

 

I absolutely agree with you, philosophically. But what you suggest is akin
to telling a day-trader to invest for long-term growth. Plus, I think you've
got the benefit pattern up-ended; developing countries are not apt to be
distracted from "solutions" that provide improved yields in one growing
season, particularly if the previous season was a bust.

 

With cereal grains at record high prices, few growers will want to defer
revenue. Unless the rules of the game are changed, prices will continue to
rise, to reflect the higher cost of production resulting from higher
petroleum costs, as well as the higher demand resulting from growing
populations. The squeeze will be at the bottom end; those living on a
handful of rice will now get half. It's the Free Market, after all!

 

Nietzsche said something to the effect that, without hope, there is
revolution.  Whenever the rational benefits of deferred benefits are argued,
it helps to be talking to a man with a full stomach. As in atmospheric
carbon, if the developed countries are unwilling to lead the way, the rest
of the world will smell a rat.

 

Mark

 

From: Sean K. Barry [mailto:sean.barry at juno.com] 
Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2008 9:26 PM
To: mark at ludlow.com; 'Kevin Chisholm'; 'Nikolaus Foidl'
Cc: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Terrapreta Digest, Vol 16, Issue 25

 

Hi Mark,

 

Simpler methods which maybe are not as immediately effective but will build
improvement over time rather than show immediate vast improvements and
degradation over time are maybe more likely to appeal to non-western
agronomists, perhaps.  Immediate gratification is very American and very Big
Business.  This fits right in with the argument that Biochar is against the
"American Way of Life".   That argument has been made here.  "Unless its
immediately competitively profitable for American farmers, then it will not
be adopted here or by anywhere else in the world."  I don't buy that.
Another hurdle is that some American farmers think carbon sequestration is a
crock and that the TP concept has to be sold entirely to them based on
immediate agricultural benefits and immediate cost benefit returns for them.

 

Investment is a dirty word for some who are struggling economically.  They
view immediate profits as the only remedy for their plight.  I have to admit
that this argument compels many many struggling American farmers (as least
many of the ones who have posted in here).  Perhaps it is not a widespread
belief.   I don't like being chastised for suggesting a change in philosophy
on this, but I am likely to get more for having said what I just said.

 

Regards,

 

SKB

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Mark <mailto:mark at ludlow.com>  Ludlow 

To: 'Kevin Chisholm' <mailto:kchisholm at ca.inter.net>  ; 'Nikolaus
<mailto:nfoidl at desa.com.bo>  Foidl' 

Cc: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org 

Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2008 10:57 PM

Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Terrapreta Digest, Vol 16, Issue 25

 

Hi Kevin,

You have it right if you are suggesting that to get the full benefits of
char one must have a complex system and be a soils scientist, to boot.

I'm looking for the rhythm method here; something that cuts across the
bandwidth of agricultural technology and chemical analyses. A few simple
rules, as it were. If we have to go high-tech to get optimal or even
measurable benefits then char is probably DOA.

The Western World has an addiction to technology. Injecting anhydrous
ammonia into the soil was pretty radical in its day. But what an immediate
effect! It's doubtful that even the most deliberate char application system
will have the same kinds of self-obvious effects. Does that mean we
shouldn't bother? Hardly! But it may be time to temper the optimism; at this
point, our lack of knowledge seems to outweigh what we are certain of (which
seems to be limited to the fact that carbon can be sequestered for some
centuries).

Mark

-----Original Message-----
From: terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org
[mailto:terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Kevin Chisholm
Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2008 1:37 PM
To: Nikolaus Foidl
Cc: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Terrapreta Digest, Vol 16, Issue 25

Dear Nikolaus

Wow!! This is a neat proposed system indeed! However, it very much 
points out the complexity involved in "doing things right." 
Additionally, it points out the need to know "what else was done?"

Actually, to sort out the benefit of char additions, one would need 4 
test plots:
1: Control
2: Control + Char
3: Control + "All that other Good Stuff"
4: Control + "All that other Good Stuff" + Char

Given that "All that other good stuff" is necessary for the charcoal to 
be shown in its best light, we would be doing a serious disfavour to 
biochar additions to the soil, if all we add is charcoal.

We must be very careful to structure tests properly, and also, we must 
be very careful about comparing the benefits seen from char additions in 
different tests. For example, comparing 1: and 2: might suggest "Char 
improves yield by 10%, but comparing 3: and 4: might give a 30% 
incremental yield with charcoal.

Best wishes,

Kevin



Nikolaus Foidl wrote:
> Dear Kevin!
>
> In industrial sized agriculture you would use a 10 m3 tank hauled in the
> back of the seeding machine, pumping a slurry of fine milled charcoal,
> mycorrhizae infected soil and diluted melassa together with your favorite
> mix of fungi and bacteria and apply it as a side dressing or a broad band-
> below seed-dressing.
>
> As you repeat the same every year 2 times your field little by little will
> have the required charcoal concentration everywhere.
>
> The mix as well should contain some high protein containing sludge (hammer
> milled leaves from alfa alfa or Moringa) to rise nitrogen and organic
matter
> content below or around the roots zone. If you apply it this way the total
> mass applied below the root zone is less then a factor 35 compared with
> whole field application and rotavation. As well the energy need is much
> lower and its done in the planting operation.
>
> In the moment i am buying a seeding machine with a 500 gallon fertilizer
> tank and will mount a slurry pump to the tank to feed my plants through
the
> fertilizing slot.
>
> Best regards Nikolaus
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Terrapreta mailing list
> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
> http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
> http://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


_______________________________________________
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/20080510/518dd35d/attachment-0001.html