[Terrapreta] cattail starts
info at microecofarming.com
info at microecofarming.com
Tue May 20 19:27:48 CDT 2008
We are doing a small agrichar experiment on our farm with corn, and we also want to experiment with cattails for a variety of purposes. I saw others mentioning them here, so may I ask, does anyone know where I can order cattail starts for planting? I tried digging some up in an unrestricted roadside area... didn't work. I live in Washington State, wouldn't mind mail order.
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Terrapreta Digest, Vol 16, Issue 69
> From: terrapreta-request at bioenergylists.org
> Date: Tue, May 20, 2008 3:00 pm
> To: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
>
> 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: Amazon cattle ranging (Nikolaus Foidl)
> 2. Re: Why farms must change to save the planet (Kevin Chisholm)
> 3. Re: Why farms must change to save the planet (lou gold)
> 4. Re: Fwd: PHOTOS ABOUT CATTAIL (Kevin Chisholm)
> 5. Re: Fwd: PHOTOS ABOUT CATTAIL (Richard Haard)
> 6. Re: Just wondering . . . (Kevin Chisholm)
> 7. Re: Question (Biopact)
> 8. Re: Question (lou gold)
> 9. Re: pulverizing charcoal (Larry Williams)
> 10. Prof Flannery promoted biochar in Aussie Parliament event
> (Biopact)
> 11. Re: Why farms must change to save the planet (Kevin Chisholm)
> 12. Re: Fwd: PHOTOS ABOUT CATTAIL (Kevin Chisholm)
> 13. Re: pulverizing charcoal ( folke G?nther )
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 13:07:23 -0400
> From: Nikolaus Foidl <nfoidl at desa.com.bo>
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Amazon cattle ranging
> To: <terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
> Message-ID: <C4587D8B.43E8%nfoidl at desa.com.bo>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>
>
>
>
> Dear All!
>
> I know, everybody loves trees and it is a gut feeling for everybody that
> cutting trees is bad. Deforestation sounds like a catastrophic event.
>
> But lets have a closer look at the biomass balance in a pasture situation
> versus a forest situation.
>
> A grown established forest has neutral balance of fixation and loss, if the
> forest gets to old the danger of loosing all the stored biomass with a big
> scale fire is imminent and very often.
>
> Pasture on the other hand is continuous growing, continuous harvest. Part of
> it is turned in C fixed in the soil, (humic acids and Biomass) part is eaten
> and transferred during several month into CO2 again. But the overall balance
> of C in soil is positive( some 4 to 8 tons C per ha and year added to the
> soil).
> Agriculture is negative. We loose some 4 to 5 tons C per ha and year).
>
> So if we combine in a wider rotation program not only crop rotation like
> Soy-Maize-Sunflower-Wheat , instead include every 7 years a 2 year pasture
> in this rotation plan then we can rise organic matter from 1 % to 3,5 to 4 %
> ( which takes 4 to 7 years to degrade again to 1 %). In this case the
> comparison from the soil quality point of view would be more equilibrated.
>
> In a rainforest the quality of the soil is very poor due to the high
> precipitation, high acidity and low nutrient content of the soil( continuous
> washing out). In the same area getting pasture would lower the washing out
> and would fix more nutrients in the soil. Organic matter as well would rise.
> Renovation is continuous and not every 100 to 3000 years waiting that a
> mayor burning will happen.
>
> We in our farm in Bolivia have extended the rotation plan and are trying to
> rise every 5 to 7 years our organic matter content up to 4 % again. We left
> every 200 to 240 meter a 60 to 100 meter wide forest stripe with all stripes
> inter connected and evenly distributed some bigger areas with between 300
> to 900 ha. As well in every field we have water retention lagoons to foment
> the diversity of live forms. So in a total area of 24.000 ha we still have
> 9500 ha left as reserve for animals and insects to get a workable
> equilibrium. 15 % of the agriculture area is changed every year into grass
> land and same amount comes back in to agricultural use every year. For us it
> works, although we continue to refine our concept.
>
> If you have a closer look at Methane Balance , O2 Balance etc. you will find
> that between pasture and Forest the difference is not as big as the press
> always assume.
>
> We have to see that this planet is the only one and until we do not have an
> alternative to agricultural food production we cannot save all the trees in
> this world.
>
> Best regards Nikolaus
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 14:22:34 -0300
> From: Kevin Chisholm <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Why farms must change to save the planet
> To: lou gold <lou.gold at gmail.com>
> Cc: Terrapreta <Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
> Message-ID: <483308DA.5030300 at ca.inter.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Dear Lou
>
> lou gold wrote:
> > Interesting article from Scotland but no mention of biochar.
> >
> > "Why farms must change to save the planet"
> > http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/latestnews/Why-farms-must-change-to.4094167.jp
>
> Any Study that blames cow farts on Scotland's Greenhouse Gas Emissions
> is faulty. Cows don't eat coal or oil... they eat grass. Grass is a
> "biofood" that comes from the biosphere. Cows are "solar fed."
>
> Kevin
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/20080520/077cb14c/attachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 14:40:07 -0300
> From: "lou gold" <lou.gold at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Why farms must change to save the planet
> To: "Kevin Chisholm" <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
> Cc: Terrapreta <Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
> Message-ID:
> <90d45c6d0805201040q5acf00b6k81cba72d5ede3826 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Kevin,
>
> Cows digest organic carbon and fart methane, a highly potent greenhouse gas.
>
> lou
>
> On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 2:22 PM, Kevin Chisholm <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Dear Lou
> >
> >
> > lou gold wrote:
> >
> > Interesting article from Scotland but no mention of biochar.
> >
> > "Why farms must change to save the planet"
> >
> > http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/latestnews/Why-farms-must-change-to.4094167.jp
> >
> >
> > Any Study that blames cow farts on Scotland's Greenhouse Gas Emissions is
> > faulty. Cows don't eat coal or oil... they eat grass. Grass is a "biofood"
> > that comes from the biosphere. Cows are "solar fed."
> >
> > Kevin
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Terrapreta mailing listTerrapreta at bioenergylists.orghttp://bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/terrapreta_bioenergylists.orghttp://terrapreta.bioenergylists.orghttp://info.bioenergylists.org
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> http://lougold.blogspot.com
> http://flickr.com/visionshare/sets
> http://youtube.com/my_videos
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: /attachments/20080520/ed470180/attachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 15:21:22 -0300
> From: Kevin Chisholm <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Fwd: PHOTOS ABOUT CATTAIL
> To: bhans at earthmimic.com
> Cc: Terrapreta <terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
> Message-ID: <483316A2.9010904 at ca.inter.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Dear Brian
>
> Brian Hans wrote:
> > I frequent Thailand quite often and live in Wisconsin. /T.
> > angustifolia/ is in both places, thick. Cattails represent a
> > tremendous annual C and NPK... source that is virtually 100% recycled
> > into CO2 and worse, CH4 and loss of Nutrients down stream (Ocean dead
> > zones). Human fix more N than biology does, and all that P, K digging
> > doesnt just evaporate... there is far too much C and NPK being pumped
> > into our environment.
> >
> > I vote that we develop the ability to harvest cattail marshes. I
> > think (as an ecologist) that we can do this with more benefit than
> > damage. A invasive spp. monoculture marsh doesnt offer a whole lot of
> > biodiversity and ecology anyhow except as a kidney. And by removing C
> > and NPK... from the system, we are very much enhancing that filtering
> > capability of the marsh. Farmer gets his C and NPK back for a small price.
>
> Certainly, it would be nice to be able to harvest Cattails, but how can
> this be done??? The roots tangle together in a most uncooperative
> manner, such that they need heavy machinery to deal with them. Some
> people feel that Cattail roots are anchored around the Gates of Hell. :-)
>
> In natural circumstances, they generally seem to grow in bottomless
> bogs, that are great places to lose heavy machinery. :-)
>
> What would you suggest as a practical concept for growing and harvesting
> Cattails?
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Kevin
> >
> > I cant wait for a portable gasifier tractor that can be run like a
> > combine... in my lifetime.
> >
> > Brian
> >
> > */Richard Haard <richrd at nas.com>/* wrote:
> >
> > Michael
> >
> > It's a stretch on this list but Ben and I have Been discussing
> > this for over a year in the context of biofuels utilizing the
> > starch in the rhizomes and also reinventing agriculture by
> > utilizing land considered marginal for purposes of traditional
> > farming and native plants that might become new crops with
> > additional uses for food, fiber and economic endeavor for local
> > farmers. We've been working over this topic on the gasification
> > list but I suppose Ben posted here because we are more oriented to
> > farming/growing plants.
> >
> > For me the link to terra preta is the link to agriculture as is /
> > was practiced by native peoples in different parts of the world.
> > In my part of the world a well known ethnobotanist, Dr Nancy
> > Turner, was editor for a book (conference proceedings)
> > titled keeping it living
> > <http://www.washington.edu/uwpress/search/books/DEUKEC.html> in
> > which the authors countered the popular supposition that the
> > native peoples of the PNW were simple hunter gathers and instead
> > they were actively cultivating plants long before contact with the
> > Europeans.
> >
> > from the review
> >
> > Keeping It Living tells the story of traditional plant
> > cultivation practices found from the Oregon coast to Southeast
> > Alaska. It explores tobacco gardens among the Haida and Tlingit,
> > managed camas plots among the Coast Salish of Puget Sound and the
> > Strait of Georgia, estuarine root gardens along the central coast
> > of British Columbia, wapato maintenance on the Columbia and Fraser
> > Rivers, and tended berry plots up and down the entire coast.
> >
> > Especially interesting to me is the fact that the method of
> > cultivation of these native peoples was passive in a natural
> > environment and also that some of the early settlers respected the
> > heritage of these original peoples and as they settled into their
> > places, intermarried, took the effort to learn their methods and
> > uses of native plants. A long time friend of mine now deceased was
> > fourth generation descendant who had kept this knowledge alive.
> > For some time I would interview her on this topic and one story
> > she told me was about her childhood living on San Juan Island
> > during the great depression years and it was their knowledge and
> > use of native plants that kept them alive.
> >
> > Perhaps , just like terra preta there is something here that may
> > show us how we are going to be making our energy and food after
> > the oil is gone.
> >
> > Thanks for the link to NZ Typha species. There are 4 species in
> > Argentina including the ubiquitous Typha latifolia of North America.
> >
> > Rich
> > On May 18, 2008, at 2:24 AM, Michael Bailes wrote:
> >
> >> http://plantnet.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au/cgi-bin/NSWfl.pl?page=nswfl&lvl=sp&name=Typha~orientalis
> >> <http://plantnet.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au/cgi-bin/NSWfl.pl?page=nswfl&lvl=sp&name=Typha%7Eorientalis>
> >>
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattail
> >>
> >> Why is it important?
> >> m
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Terrapreta mailing list
> >> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org <mailto: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
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 11:34:58 -0700
> From: Richard Haard <richrd at nas.com>
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Fwd: PHOTOS ABOUT CATTAIL
> To: Kevin Chisholm <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
> Cc: Terrapreta <terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>, bhans at earthmimic.com
> Message-ID: <F3C34B1D-AC84-4693-BC59-EC345E200276 at nas.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
>
> There are some other realities.
>
> Seasonally dry fields can be only of marginal use for agriculture
> there may be a period when field is accessible
> we grow cattails at our nursery as 1 and 2-0 plants. Starch
> accumulates well in fall roots. Does this also happen in wild
> populations?
> Equipment can be adapted. I have suggested a lifter-shaker as is used
> in our bare root nursery, there is also potato digger which in the
> nearby skagit valley works in very mucky soils during winter
>
> lastly floating harvester/dredge can be adapted from system used by
> clam diggers.
>
> Basics on real usefulness of 'wild stands' and mitigating env impacts
> needs to be studied. Strictly biomass for methane production? or
> capturing starch for ETOH ? the former would only require mowing like
> pasture and not digging.
>
> It may be best to set up cultivated stands with plants of uniform age
> at least after initial harvest
>
> On May 20, 2008, at 11:21 AM, Kevin Chisholm wrote:
>
> > Dear Brian
> >
> > Brian Hans wrote:
> >> I frequent Thailand quite often and live in Wisconsin. /T.
> >> angustifolia/ is in both places, thick. Cattails represent a
> >> tremendous annual C and NPK... source that is virtually 100%
> >> recycled into CO2 and worse, CH4 and loss of Nutrients down stream
> >> (Ocean dead zones). Human fix more N than biology does, and all
> >> that P, K digging doesnt just evaporate... there is far too much C
> >> and NPK being pumped into our environment.
> >> I vote that we develop the ability to harvest cattail marshes. I
> >> think (as an ecologist) that we can do this with more benefit than
> >> damage. A invasive spp. monoculture marsh doesnt offer a whole lot
> >> of biodiversity and ecology anyhow except as a kidney. And by
> >> removing C and NPK... from the system, we are very much enhancing
> >> that filtering capability of the marsh. Farmer gets his C and NPK
> >> back for a small price.
> >
> > Certainly, it would be nice to be able to harvest Cattails, but how
> > can this be done??? The roots tangle together in a most
> > uncooperative manner, such that they need heavy machinery to deal
> > with them. Some people feel that Cattail roots are anchored around
> > the Gates of Hell. :-)
> >
> > In natural circumstances, they generally seem to grow in bottomless
> > bogs, that are great places to lose heavy machinery. :-)
> > What would you suggest as a practical concept for growing and
> > harvesting Cattails?
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> > Kevin
> >> I cant wait for a portable gasifier tractor that can be run like a
> >> combine... in my lifetime.
> >> Brian
> >> */Richard Haard <richrd at nas.com>/* wrote:
> >>
> >> Michael
> >> It's a stretch on this list but Ben and I have Been discussing
> >> this for over a year in the context of biofuels utilizing the
> >> starch in the rhizomes and also reinventing agriculture by
> >> utilizing land considered marginal for purposes of traditional
> >> farming and native plants that might become new crops with
> >> additional uses for food, fiber and economic endeavor for local
> >> farmers. We've been working over this topic on the gasification
> >> list but I suppose Ben posted here because we are more oriented to
> >> farming/growing plants.
> >> For me the link to terra preta is the link to agriculture as is /
> >> was practiced by native peoples in different parts of the world.
> >> In my part of the world a well known ethnobotanist, Dr Nancy
> >> Turner, was editor for a book (conference proceedings)
> >> titled keeping it living
> >> <http://www.washington.edu/uwpress/search/books/DEUKEC.html> in
> >> which the authors countered the popular supposition that the
> >> native peoples of the PNW were simple hunter gathers and instead
> >> they were actively cultivating plants long before contact with the
> >> Europeans.
> >> from the review
> >>
> >> Keeping It Living tells the story of traditional plant
> >> cultivation practices found from the Oregon coast to Southeast
> >> Alaska. It explores tobacco gardens among the Haida and Tlingit,
> >> managed camas plots among the Coast Salish of Puget Sound and the
> >> Strait of Georgia, estuarine root gardens along the central coast
> >> of British Columbia, wapato maintenance on the Columbia and Fraser
> >> Rivers, and tended berry plots up and down the entire coast.
> >>
> >> Especially interesting to me is the fact that the method of
> >> cultivation of these native peoples was passive in a natural
> >> environment and also that some of the early settlers respected the
> >> heritage of these original peoples and as they settled into their
> >> places, intermarried, took the effort to learn their methods and
> >> uses of native plants. A long time friend of mine now deceased was
> >> fourth generation descendant who had kept this knowledge alive.
> >> For some time I would interview her on this topic and one story
> >> she told me was about her childhood living on San Juan Island
> >> during the great depression years and it was their knowledge and
> >> use of native plants that kept them alive.
> >> Perhaps , just like terra preta there is something here that may
> >> show us how we are going to be making our energy and food after
> >> the oil is gone.
> >> Thanks for the link to NZ Typha species. There are 4 species in
> >> Argentina including the ubiquitous Typha latifolia of North
> >> America.
> >> Rich
> >> On May 18, 2008, at 2:24 AM, Michael Bailes wrote:
> >>
> >>> http://plantnet.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au/cgi-bin/NSWfl.pl?page=nswfl&lvl=sp&name=Typha
> >>> ~orientalis
> >>> <http://plantnet.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au/cgi-bin/NSWfl.pl?page=nswfl&lvl=sp&name=Typha%7Eorientalis
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattail
> >>>
> >>> Why is it important?
> >>> m
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Terrapreta mailing list
> >>> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org <mailto: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
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 15:51:43 -0300
> From: Kevin Chisholm <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Just wondering . . .
> To: Jim Joyner <jimstoy at dtccom.net>
> Cc: Terra Preta <terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
> Message-ID: <48331DBF.5090803 at ca.inter.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Dear Jim
>
> Jim Joyner wrote:
> > I'm just wondering, looking through the last 50 to 100 list emails, I
> > have a hard time finding any of it that has anything at all to do with
> > Terra Preta. This is as bad as spam any day. Are there not other
> > discussion boards and lists for this stuff?
> >
>
> Tom Miles, List Owner recently posted the following Guidelines:
>
> All,
>
> There is no need to wonder. This list is about:
>
> 1. the intentional use of charcoal in soil
>
> 2. sequestration of carbon using charcoal, and
>
> 3. production of charcoal
>
>
> See: http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/about
>
>
> I am the owner, sponsor and principal host of the list. List moderators
> are: Erich Knight, Michael Bailes and Ron Larson.
>
> Let's keep the discussion and postings on terra preta. We depend on the
> list members to keep their discussion focused on the topic. There are
> many interesting tangential topics for which there are abundant forums
> on the internet. In the more than 20 years that I have hosted or
> moderated online discussion lists this is probably the worst list when
> it comes to people wanting to wander off topic.
>
> Thanks for your cooperation.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Tom Miles
>
> If these guidelines were followed, then the "Signal/Noise Ratio" would
> be improved considerably.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Kevin
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Jim
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: /attachments/20080520/1677265a/attachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 21:46:36 +0200
> From: "Biopact" <biopact at biopact.com>
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Question
> To: "lou gold" <lou.gold at gmail.com>
> Cc: "terrapreta at bioenergylists.org" <Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
> Message-ID: <6A594C8A8ED047E98740065D6E9291FA at PCvanLaurens>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Lou, just a very quick interjection: a top-down approach may indeed be necessary, even in Africa, but biochar can precisely play a great role in offsetting the potentially disastrous social side-effects of such top-down approaches. Top-down and bottom-up schemes might become complementary. Again, we could be looking at a perfect conceptual match.
> Lorenzo
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: lou gold
> To: Biopact
> Cc: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 6:19 PM
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Question
>
>
> Very good thinking here Lorenzo. I think the Amazon has its differences but conceptually you are on target. I have been thinking that REDD and biochar and biofuel and fertilizer all need to be connected. thanks for helping me flesh it out.
>
> One of the problems in Brazil is that the commodity boom is producing lots of land speculation and both the big and little guys often "skirt" the laws. The remedy may possibly necessitate a top-down approach in order to establish the needed institutional reach into the frontier. The situation is very complicated.
>
>
> On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 12:41 PM, Biopact <biopact at biopact.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Lou, I'm working on the Congo Basin forest, where the situation is rather different (deforestation & degratation primarily caused by shifting cultivation). But I think there could be many similarities between our respective approaches. Let me briefly outline one of the main benefits of biochar in this context, as I see it. Biochar must be seen in its relation to proposed mechanisms to protect forests as carbon stocks ("avoided deforestation", AD / "Reducing Emissions from Deforestation & Forest Degradation", REDD / etc...).
>
> Many of these proposals are on the table, each with their pros and cons. They can be seen as "competitors" to the biochar concept, even though they are receiving much more attention by the international community. Instead of competitors, though, they can just as well become synergistically linked and reinforce each other.
>
> One recurring problem with AD, REDD and other schemes is that they are all "top down" approaches (the state receives funds from the international community or from the carbon markets to protect the C-stock in forests; funds which are supposed to "trickle down" as social and economic benefits to populations at the forest margins). This top-down approach represents many social risks; you can't just chase away millions of people out of their forest habitat. Without genuine local economic development amongst these people, and if the funds don't reach them, deforestation will go on elsewhere (the "displacement effect" or "leakage") or the scheme will simply be resisted on the ground.
>
> Biochar on the contrary is a bottom-up strategy - the carbon management is done by the very populations who live at the forest frontier, and they immediately receive tangible benefits (improved agricultural yields) and the carbon credits (at least, that's the scenario).
>
> So to me, the most important thing is to search for synergies between AD/REDD and similar mechnisms on the one hand, and biochar on the other hand.
>
> REDD may help save forests, but to implement it successfully, local economic development amongst the populations must be guaranteed, and this can be done via biochar projects. Both approaches reinforce each other. As REDD formally protects a given area of forest, biochar does so indirectly, by limiting agricultural expansion by communities living at the forest frontier.
>
> REDD and biochar can in fact become a perfect match.
>
> Now with regards to your question about cattle ranching, here's a potential scenario (I must stress: the situation in Central Africa is quite different, so I'm not an expert on land-use change dynamics at the forest frontier in Brazil). Pasture expansion into the Amazon is often the second step of a long series of steps that drives deforestation: first illegal loggers move in, then the cattle ranchers clear the remainder of the forest and prepare the way for soybean farmers later on. So to calculate the opportunity cost of a patch of intact forest, you have to value its timber, its low-cost land that can be used for grazing by cattle (cattle are big money), and its function as a soybean field (soybean prices have risen seriously).
>
> Now let's break things up: REDD can compensate for the lost opportunity to harvest timber; biochar can compensate for the lost opportunity for cattle to graze. What you're left compensating is the soybean field: now biochar's ability to make poor soils more fertile should partly compensate this lost opportunity.
>
> So, suppose the Brazilian government supports both REDD and biochar, and the international carbon authorities (Kyoto) recognize biochar as a mechanism to sequester carbon; then you can potentially halt deforestation. You get big funds for standing pristine forest (the frontier), while you get big funds from sequestering C via char at the frontier, by drawing on secondary forest or degraded forest which is converted into biochar (later on field residues keep adding biochar and keep bringing in money). So the frontier gets protected by a strong "buffer zone": a standing forest worth a lot for its carbon (recognized via REDD), with "in front" of it a biochar zone where productive agriculture can be undertaken, limiting the pressure on the protected forest.
>
> The synergy between these two concepts and the rather big amounts of money they can bring in, might be capable of halting the three factors mentioned above (logging, cattle, soy).
>
> Not sure if this makes sense. But I'm very interested in getting to know your take on this.
>
> I'm writing an overview of this concept of the "biochar buffer zone" as it relates to the Congo Basin forest. There it makes for a wonderful and very workable synergy with REDD, mainly because there's much less pressure from cattle ranching and because industrialised agriculture is far less developed there. Now is the chance to join biochar + REDD as a way to prevent the Brazilian deforestation scenario which we've seen the past 30 years, from playing out in Central Africa.
>
> Best, Lorenzo
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: lou gold
> To: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 8:29 AM
> Subject: [Terrapreta] Question
>
>
> Hi All,
>
> I need some help working through a puzzle.
>
> As you know, my highest priority is saving the forest, especially the Amazon forest. I have been investing a lot of hopes in the possibility that terra preta might somehow show the way. But I have not been able to figure out the benefit of soil improvement (etc, etc) for cattle ranching and it is the expansion of cattle combined with logging that is the front line of deforestation.
>
> I know that switching from slash-and-burn to slash-and-char will be helpful. But cattle are going to expand as the world gains more and more people who want to eat meat. Please, let's not go into the protein efficiencies or ethics of this trend. I'm trying to deal with the world as it is. Can anyone see a way that terra preta might be helpful here?
>
> Thanks.
>
> lou
>
> --
> http://lougold.blogspot.com
> http://flickr.com/visionshare/sets
> http://youtube.com/my_videos
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Terrapreta mailing list
> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
> http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
> http://info.bioenergylists.org
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.21/1455 - Release Date: 19/05/2008 17:04
>
>
>
>
> --
> http://lougold.blogspot.com
> http://flickr.com/visionshare/sets
> http://youtube.com/my_videos
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.21/1455 - Release Date: 19/05/2008 17:04
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: /attachments/20080520/242d4fec/attachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 16:50:25 -0300
> From: "lou gold" <lou.gold at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Question
> To: Biopact <biopact at biopact.com>
> Cc: "terrapreta at bioenergylists.org" <Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
> Message-ID:
> <90d45c6d0805201250i749776c3v11d2e1be93ad3ab7 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> yes, YES. the synergies are where it's at, for sure.
>
> On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 4:46 PM, Biopact <biopact at biopact.com> wrote:
>
> > Lou, just a very quick interjection: a top-down approach may indeed be
> > necessary, even in Africa, but biochar can precisely play a great role in
> > offsetting the potentially disastrous social side-effects of such top-down
> > approaches. Top-down and bottom-up schemes might become complementary.
> > Again, we could be looking at a perfect conceptual match.
> > Lorenzo
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > *From:* lou gold <lou.gold at gmail.com>
> > *To:* Biopact <biopact at biopact.com>
> > *Cc:* terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> > *Sent:* Tuesday, May 20, 2008 6:19 PM
> > *Subject:* Re: [Terrapreta] Question
> >
> > Very good thinking here Lorenzo. I think the Amazon has its differences but
> > conceptually you are on target. I have been thinking that REDD and biochar
> > and biofuel and fertilizer all need to be connected. thanks for helping me
> > flesh it out.
> >
> > One of the problems in Brazil is that the commodity boom is producing lots
> > of land speculation and both the big and little guys often "skirt" the laws.
> > The remedy may *possibly *necessitate a top-down approach in order to
> > establish the needed institutional reach into the frontier. The situation is
> > very complicated.
> >
> > On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 12:41 PM, Biopact <biopact at biopact.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Lou, I'm working on the Congo Basin forest, where the situation is
> >> rather different (deforestation & degratation primarily caused by shifting
> >> cultivation). But I think there could be many similarities between our
> >> respective approaches. Let me briefly outline one of the main benefits of
> >> biochar in this context, as I see it. Biochar must be seen in its relation
> >> to proposed mechanisms to protect forests as carbon stocks ("avoided
> >> deforestation", AD / "Reducing Emissions from Deforestation & Forest
> >> Degradation", REDD / etc...).
> >>
> >> Many of these proposals are on the table, each with their pros and cons.
> >> They can be seen as "competitors" to the biochar concept, even though they
> >> are receiving much more attention by the international community. Instead of
> >> competitors, though, they can just as well become synergistically linked and
> >> reinforce each other.
> >>
> >> One recurring problem with AD, REDD and other schemes is that they are all
> >> "top down" approaches (the state receives funds from the international
> >> community or from the carbon markets to protect the C-stock in forests;
> >> funds which are supposed to "trickle down" as social and economic benefits
> >> to populations at the forest margins). This top-down approach represents
> >> many social risks; you can't just chase away millions of people out of their
> >> forest habitat. Without genuine local economic development amongst these
> >> people, and if the funds don't reach them, deforestation will go on
> >> elsewhere (the "displacement effect" or "leakage") or the scheme will simply
> >> be resisted on the ground.
> >>
> >> Biochar on the contrary is a bottom-up strategy - the carbon management is
> >> done by the very populations who live at the forest frontier, and they
> >> immediately receive tangible benefits (improved agricultural yields) and the
> >> carbon credits (at least, that's the scenario).
> >>
> >> So to me, the most important thing is to search for synergies between
> >> AD/REDD and similar mechnisms on the one hand, and biochar on the other
> >> hand.
> >>
> >> REDD may help save forests, but to implement it successfully, local
> >> economic development amongst the populations must be guaranteed, and this
> >> can be done via biochar projects. Both approaches reinforce each other. As
> >> REDD formally protects a given area of forest, biochar does so indirectly,
> >> by limiting agricultural expansion by communities living at the forest
> >> frontier.
> >>
> >> REDD and biochar can in fact become a perfect match.
> >>
> >> Now with regards to your question about cattle ranching, here's a
> >> potential scenario (I must stress: the situation in Central Africa is quite
> >> different, so I'm not an expert on land-use change dynamics at the forest
> >> frontier in Brazil). Pasture expansion into the Amazon is often the
> >> second step of a long series of steps that drives deforestation: first
> >> illegal loggers move in, then the cattle ranchers clear the remainder of the
> >> forest and prepare the way for soybean farmers later on. So to calculate the
> >> opportunity cost of a patch of intact forest, you have to value its timber,
> >> its low-cost land that can be used for grazing by cattle (cattle are big
> >> money), and its function as a soybean field (soybean prices have risen
> >> seriously).
> >>
> >> Now let's break things up: REDD can compensate for the lost opportunity to
> >> harvest timber; biochar can compensate for the lost opportunity for cattle
> >> to graze. What you're left compensating is the soybean field: now biochar's
> >> ability to make poor soils more fertile should partly compensate this lost
> >> opportunity.
> >>
> >> So, suppose the Brazilian government supports both REDD and biochar, and
> >> the international carbon authorities (Kyoto) recognize biochar as a
> >> mechanism to sequester carbon; then you can potentially halt deforestation.
> >> You get big funds for standing pristine forest (the frontier), while you get
> >> big funds from sequestering C via char at the frontier, by drawing on
> >> secondary forest or degraded forest which is converted into biochar (later
> >> on field residues keep adding biochar and keep bringing in money). So the
> >> frontier gets protected by a strong "buffer zone": a standing forest worth a
> >> lot for its carbon (recognized via REDD), with "in front" of it a biochar
> >> zone where productive agriculture can be undertaken, limiting the pressure
> >> on the protected forest.
> >>
> >> The synergy between these two concepts and the rather big amounts of money
> >> they can bring in, might be capable of halting the three factors mentioned
> >> above (logging, cattle, soy).
> >>
> >> Not sure if this makes sense. But I'm very interested in getting to know
> >> your take on this.
> >>
> >> I'm writing an overview of this concept of the "biochar buffer zone" as it
> >> relates to the Congo Basin forest. There it makes for a wonderful and very
> >> workable synergy with REDD, mainly because there's much less pressure from
> >> cattle ranching and because industrialised agriculture is far less developed
> >> there. Now is the chance to join biochar + REDD as a way to prevent the
> >> Brazilian deforestation scenario which we've seen the past 30 years, from
> >> playing out in Central Africa.
> >>
> >> Best, Lorenzo
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> *From:* lou gold <lou.gold at gmail.com>
> >> *To:* terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> >> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 20, 2008 8:29 AM
> >> *Subject:* [Terrapreta] Question
> >>
> >> Hi All,
> >>
> >> I need some help working through a puzzle.
> >>
> >> As you know, my highest priority is saving the forest, especially the
> >> Amazon forest. I have been investing a lot of hopes in the possibility that
> >> terra preta might somehow show the way. But I have not been able to figure
> >> out the benefit of soil improvement (etc, etc) for cattle ranching and it is
> >> the expansion of cattle combined with logging that is the front line of
> >> deforestation.
> >>
> >> I know that switching from slash-and-burn to slash-and-char will be
> >> helpful. But cattle are going to expand as the world gains more and more
> >> people who want to eat meat. Please, let's not go into the protein
> >> efficiencies or ethics of this trend. I'm trying to deal with the world as
> >> it is. Can anyone see a way that terra preta might be helpful here?
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >> lou
> >>
> >> --
> >> http://lougold.blogspot.com
> >> http://flickr.com/visionshare/sets
> >> http://youtube.com/my_videos
> >>
> >> ------------------------------
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Terrapreta mailing list
> >> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> >> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
> >> http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
> >> http://info.bioenergylists.org
> >>
> >> ------------------------------
> >>
> >> No virus found in this incoming message.
> >> Checked by AVG.
> >> Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.21/1455 - Release Date:
> >> 19/05/2008 17:04
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > http://lougold.blogspot.com
> > http://flickr.com/visionshare/sets
> > http://youtube.com/my_videos
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG.
> > Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.21/1455 - Release Date:
> > 19/05/2008 17:04
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> http://lougold.blogspot.com
> http://flickr.com/visionshare/sets
> http://youtube.com/my_videos
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: /attachments/20080520/ae54888f/attachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 14:04:55 -0700
> From: Larry Williams <lwilliams at nas.com>
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] pulverizing charcoal
> To: "Greg and April" <gregandapril at earthlink.net>
> Cc: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org, folke G?nther <folkeg at gmail.com>
> Message-ID: <505DED7C-42C1-4C6D-AF15-53110F86DCB5 at nas.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Greg-------Folke may be right. After two years I can't seem to find
> any of the lump charcoal that I placed in the ground. It appears that
> the critters and plants are breaking the charcoal up. I would suggest
> after it has been saturated with soil moisture. Except some small
> chunks of charcoal remain dry after a year in the soil. Rich has
> posted a picture of this dry charcoal-------Larry
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> On May 20, 2008, at 8:51 AM, Greg and April wrote:
>
> > Are you sure about that ?
> >
> > We already have some evidence that when char level get above a
> > certain level in worm bins, they don't do very well - probably
> > because it's so abrasive.
> >
> > If it's abrasive enough to keep worm levels down, what makes you
> > think that the worms can make big pieces small?
> >
> > I'm not trying to be rude, I'm just pointing out that we may have
> > some evidence that what you said may not be true.
> >
> >
> > Greg H.
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: folke G?nther
> > To: May Waddington
> > Cc: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org ; Roy Lent
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 2:17
> > Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] pulverizing charcoal
> >
> > The worms and the plant roots will do the job. After a year, all
> > pieces are conveniently small.
> > FG
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Terrapreta mailing list
> > Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> > http://bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/
> > terrapreta_bioenergylists.org
> > http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
> > http://info.bioenergylists.org
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: /attachments/20080520/da699c7a/attachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 23:20:22 +0200
> From: "Biopact" <biopact at biopact.com>
> Subject: [Terrapreta] Prof Flannery promoted biochar in Aussie
> Parliament event
> To: "terra Preta" <terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
> Message-ID: <622E469969894442BA48A3BC5016B318 at PCvanLaurens>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Interesting, he keeps mentioning it!
> http://www.theage.com.au/news/global-warming/radical-plan-to-save-planet/2008/05/19/1211182701986.html
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: /attachments/20080520/14b910a3/attachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 18:29:25 -0300
> From: Kevin Chisholm <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Why farms must change to save the planet
> To: lou gold <lou.gold at gmail.com>
> Cc: Terrapreta <Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
> Message-ID: <483342B5.9070900 at ca.inter.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Dear Lou
>
> lou gold wrote:
> > Kevin,
> >
> > Cows digest organic carbon and fart methane, a highly potent
> > greenhouse gas.
>
> Yes, about 20 times more effective a GHG. However, there is no net
> change in the long term. If the world had only farting cows and not coal
> mines and oil wells and fossil methane deposits that burped, there would
> be no net increase in atmospheric CO2. Unless, of course, natural
> cycles, such as sun spots and whatever else Good Old Mother Nature wants
> to heap upon us, melts the Permafrost Regions, so that that organic
> matter can oxidize.
>
> Focusing on cow burps and termite farts is diversionary. To reduce Man
> Made GHG's, reduce fossil fuel consumption.
>
> Kevin
> >
> > lou
> >
> > On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 2:22 PM, Kevin Chisholm
> > <kchisholm at ca.inter.net <mailto:kchisholm at ca.inter.net>> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Lou
> >
> >
> > lou gold wrote:
> >> Interesting article from Scotland but no mention of biochar.
> >>
> >> "Why farms must change to save the planet"
> >> http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/latestnews/Why-farms-must-change-to.4094167.jp
> >
> > Any Study that blames cow farts on Scotland's Greenhouse Gas
> > Emissions is faulty. Cows don't eat coal or oil... they eat grass.
> > Grass is a "biofood" that comes from the biosphere. Cows are
> > "solar fed."
> >
> > Kevin
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Terrapreta mailing list
> >> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org <mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
> >> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
> >> http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
> >> http://info.bioenergylists.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > http://lougold.blogspot.com
> > http://flickr.com/visionshare/sets
> > http://youtube.com/my_videos
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 12
> Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 18:50:18 -0300
> From: Kevin Chisholm <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Fwd: PHOTOS ABOUT CATTAIL
> To: Richard Haard <richrd at nas.com>
> Cc: Terrapreta <terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>, bhans at earthmimic.com
> Message-ID: <4833479A.1040209 at ca.inter.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Dear Richard
>
> Richard Haard wrote:
> > There are some other realities.
> >
> > Seasonally dry fields can be only of marginal use for agriculture
> > there may be a period when field is accessible
> > we grow cattails at our nursery as 1 and 2-0 plants.
>
> I don't know thew terminology, but I presume this is for 1 and two
> plants in separate clumps. If so, then this would be very much easire to
> hargest than would be a tangled mat.
> > Starch accumulates well in fall roots. Does this also happen in wild
> > populations?
>
> I am not sure, but I believe it does; the plants store energy and
> nutrients so that tehy can come back to life after teh dormancy season.
>
> > Equipment can be adapted. I have suggested a lifter-shaker as is used
> > in our bare root nursery, there is also potato digger which in the
> > nearby skagit valley works in very mucky soils during winter
>
> Certainly, equipment can be adapted. In teh case where teh land has a
> "dry season" where it can be traversed, or in teh case where there is a
> "hard bottom, beyond which teh machine won't sink, harvesting should not
> be overly difficult.
> >
> > lastly floating harvester/dredge can be adapted from system used by
> > clam diggers.
>
> The problem here would be the forces involved. Big forces = big buoyancy
> requirements = big machinery, or the need for a hard bottom, to support
> "spuds" that will take the digging load.
> >
> > Basics on real usefulness of 'wild stands' and mitigating env impacts
> > needs to be studied. Strictly biomass for methane production? or
> > capturing starch for ETOH ? the former would only require mowing like
> > pasture and not digging.
>
> As I understand it, the starch is stored in the root system, and the
> "above ground" growth is mainly cellulostic. There are probably cheaper
> sources of cellulostic biomass in areas where cattail biomass grows.
> >
> > It may be best to set up cultivated stands with plants of uniform age
> > at least after initial harvest.
>
> I get very discouraged at the potential for Cattail Harvest when I see
> the entanglement in local bogs with deep soft bottoms. However, there
> may very well be an opportunity for "Cattail Plantations" that are laid
> out in ways to permit easy harvesting, and perhaps they can be
> harvested in a manner that makes regrowth and subsequent harvesting
> easier. For example, perhaps a "strip harvest pattern" would make it
> easy for subsequent harvests.... the strips to be harvested would have
> "weak strips" on both sides, and they may be much more readily harvested.
>
> Perhaps "wild cattail harvesting" is a loser, but that a Cattail
> Plantation that was part of a municipal sewage treatment system could
> make enormous good sense, both environmentally and economically. From
> what I understand, a Cattail Plantation could make an excellent Tertiary
> Sewage Treatment Plant.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Kevin
> >
> > On May 20, 2008, at 11:21 AM, Kevin Chisholm wrote:
> >
> >> Dear Brian
> >>
> >> Brian Hans wrote:
> >>> I frequent Thailand quite often and live in Wisconsin. /T.
> >>> angustifolia/ is in both places, thick. Cattails represent a
> >>> tremendous annual C and NPK... source that is virtually 100%
> >>> recycled into CO2 and worse, CH4 and loss of Nutrients down stream
> >>> (Ocean dead zones). Human fix more N than biology does, and all that
> >>> P, K digging doesnt just evaporate... there is far too much C and
> >>> NPK being pumped into our environment.
> >>> I vote that we develop the ability to harvest cattail marshes. I
> >>> think (as an ecologist) that we can do this with more benefit than
> >>> damage. A invasive spp. monoculture marsh doesnt offer a whole lot
> >>> of biodiversity and ecology anyhow except as a kidney. And by
> >>> removing C and NPK... from the system, we are very much enhancing
> >>> that filtering capability of the marsh. Farmer gets his C and NPK
> >>> back for a small price.
> >>
> >> Certainly, it would be nice to be able to harvest Cattails, but how
> >> can this be done??? The roots tangle together in a most uncooperative
> >> manner, such that they need heavy machinery to deal with them. Some
> >> people feel that Cattail roots are anchored around the Gates of Hell.
> >> :-)
> >>
> >> In natural circumstances, they generally seem to grow in bottomless
> >> bogs, that are great places to lose heavy machinery. :-)
> >> What would you suggest as a practical concept for growing and
> >> harvesting Cattails?
> >>
> >> Best wishes,
> >>
> >> Kevin
> >>> I cant wait for a portable gasifier tractor that can be run like a
> >>> combine... in my lifetime.
> >>> Brian
> >>> */Richard Haard <richrd at nas.com>/* wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Michael
> >>> It's a stretch on this list but Ben and I have Been discussing
> >>> this for over a year in the context of biofuels utilizing the
> >>> starch in the rhizomes and also reinventing agriculture by
> >>> utilizing land considered marginal for purposes of traditional
> >>> farming and native plants that might become new crops with
> >>> additional uses for food, fiber and economic endeavor for local
> >>> farmers. We've been working over this topic on the gasification
> >>> list but I suppose Ben posted here because we are more oriented to
> >>> farming/growing plants.
> >>> For me the link to terra preta is the link to agriculture as is /
> >>> was practiced by native peoples in different parts of the world.
> >>> In my part of the world a well known ethnobotanist, Dr Nancy
> >>> Turner, was editor for a book (conference proceedings)
> >>> titled keeping it living
> >>> <http://www.washington.edu/uwpress/search/books/DEUKEC.html> in
> >>> which the authors countered the popular supposition that the
> >>> native peoples of the PNW were simple hunter gathers and instead
> >>> they were actively cultivating plants long before contact with the
> >>> Europeans.
> >>> from the review
> >>>
> >>> Keeping It Living tells the story of traditional plant
> >>> cultivation practices found from the Oregon coast to Southeast
> >>> Alaska. It explores tobacco gardens among the Haida and Tlingit,
> >>> managed camas plots among the Coast Salish of Puget Sound and the
> >>> Strait of Georgia, estuarine root gardens along the central coast
> >>> of British Columbia, wapato maintenance on the Columbia and Fraser
> >>> Rivers, and tended berry plots up and down the entire coast.
> >>>
> >>> Especially interesting to me is the fact that the method of
> >>> cultivation of these native peoples was passive in a natural
> >>> environment and also that some of the early settlers respected the
> >>> heritage of these original peoples and as they settled into their
> >>> places, intermarried, took the effort to learn their methods and
> >>> uses of native plants. A long time friend of mine now deceased was
> >>> fourth generation descendant who had kept this knowledge alive.
> >>> For some time I would interview her on this topic and one story
> >>> she told me was about her childhood living on San Juan Island
> >>> during the great depression years and it was their knowledge and
> >>> use of native plants that kept them alive.
> >>> Perhaps , just like terra preta there is something here that may
> >>> show us how we are going to be making our energy and food after
> >>> the oil is gone.
> >>> Thanks for the link to NZ Typha species. There are 4 species in
> >>> Argentina including the ubiquitous Typha latifolia of North America.
> >>> Rich
> >>> On May 18, 2008, at 2:24 AM, Michael Bailes wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> http://plantnet.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au/cgi-bin/NSWfl.pl?page=nswfl&lvl=sp&name=Typha~orientalis
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> <http://plantnet.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au/cgi-bin/NSWfl.pl?page=nswfl&lvl=sp&name=Typha%7Eorientalis>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattail
> >>>>
> >>>> Why is it important?
> >>>> m
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Terrapreta mailing list
> >>>> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> >>>> <mailto: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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 13
> Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 00:00:58 +0200
> From: " folke G?nther " <folkeg at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] pulverizing charcoal
> To: "Greg and April" <gregandapril at earthlink.net>
> Cc: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> Message-ID:
> <7ae7181b0805201500q6e5f201dm88909807b39106d7 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> I don't know what happens if you have *very *large amounts, but if you add a
> reasonable (>a kilo per sq. m) amount of unsorted (up to 4-5 cm pieces) char
> to he soil, and wait for a year, then all char will be very soft and easily
> split up in smaller pieces. I think the plant roots do most of the on, and
> he worms will hunt for bacteria in the char.
>
> 2008/5/20 Greg and April <gregandapril at earthlink.net>:
>
> > Are you sure about that ?
> >
> > We already have some evidence that when char level get above a certain
> > level in worm bins, they don't do very well - probably because it's so
> > abrasive.
> >
> If you add amounts of char in the worm-bin, the organic material will
> disintegrate rather fast, the microbes will be eaten by the worms, an after
> some time (faster than you think), almost only the char will be left. It is
> evident that the worms don't thrive very well there!
>
> >
> > If it's abrasive enough to keep worm levels down, what makes you think that
> > the worms can make big pieces small?
> >
> > I'm not trying to be rude, I'm just pointing out that we may have some
> > evidence that what you said may not be true.
> >
> >
> > Greg H.
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > *From:* folke G?nther <folkeg at gmail.com>
> > *To:* May Waddington <may.waddington at gmail.com>
> > *Cc:* terrapreta at bioenergylists.org ; Roy Lent <rwlent at gmail.com>
> > *Sent:* Tuesday, May 20, 2008 2:17
> > *Subject:* Re: [Terrapreta] pulverizing charcoal
> >
> > * The worms and the plant roots will do the job. After a year, all pieces
> > are conveniently small.
> > FG*
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> NB :Send your mails to folkeg at gmail.com, not to holon.se
> ----------------------------------------
> Folke G?nther
> Kollegiev?gen 19
> 224 73 Lund
> Sweden
> Phone: +46 (0)46 141429
> Cell: +46 (0)709 710306
> URL: http://www.holon.se/folke
> BLOG: http://folkegunther.blogspot.com/
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: /attachments/20080521/d90d826c/attachment.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Terrapreta mailing list
> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
>
>
> End of Terrapreta Digest, Vol 16, Issue 69
> ******************************************
More information about the Terrapreta
mailing list