[Terrapreta] pulverizing charcoal
bakaryjatta
bakaryj at gamtel.gm
Wed May 21 11:36:02 CDT 2008
To all char pulverizers or those who don't.
After wading through several posts on the subject and the spin offs to
Forests and ranching, I decided to contribute my observations.
Most of the damaging practices are by the people of means. The ones without
means (money) do the damage by going directly to the environment and take
what they want in the most efficient, usually very wasteful way. That is
within or outside whatever laws exist or are enforced in their respective
locations on the Earth.
A lot of discussion is about the ideal solution and there seem to be many
divergent views. If those solutions require means, money, or economic
consideration, the debate will probably go on forever and yet we agree we
must get on with the job. One may try and sway the ones who have the means
to pay the lobbyists, control the media and maybe some countries as well, to
put their means behind our efforts. Most of the World's population are still
left out of
it and suffer the consequences.
The answer is to make knowledge available to the large numbers in the world
who don't have those means. There have been several agricultural systems
introduced with various rates of success. Having tried several I am now
using the ones that work for my location with the very limited means at
hand. One I did not try because I have no livestock is Silvi pasture. There
you create a nice microclimate for cows, fertilizer for the pasture and
biomass for producing char. Run that past the people who may or may not
control the Amazon. It appears our friend Nikolaus Foidl is on a similar
track but on a rotational basis.
Possibly Silvi pasture would augment the effort.
Agroforestry, even if it was not a spectacular success has given me
increased food production and the stock for biochar production. (Drum
retort) Money being mainly out of the equation, there remains the economy of
labor. We do not want to reduce trees to a size that makes big chunks of
charcoal and than spend a lot of time and energy to reduce it further before
application. The trimmings of my trees are just right in size, but it takes
still too much time to reduce the length chopping it with a cutlass.
Reducing the size of the char is less of a problem as one can dance on it,
like Roy suggested. The big African mortar is too slow! Grading the char is
more time, so I take the middle way, reduction to the point where there is
nothing bigger than 15 mm.
There is no consideration for application by machinery, but the possibility
exists by using a animal drawn seeder if some people have them.
Some of the species of trees used in our and similar climates are Gliricidia
sepium and Leucaena leucocephela which are nitrogen fixing and fast growing.
Cassia simea produces a lot of biomass and more carbonaceous mulch. The
Cashew trees trimmings are harder to process as they are very crooked.
Jatropha curcass will be hard to dry but will make char as well as Sorghum
and Millet stalks. However, it being fibrous, it seems to work as an
insulator and I find some not charred all through.
My consideration is that all that is discussed needs to consider local
conditions and there is no point to make claims that things work or don't
work when the environment is widely different where the observations are
made.
Now please come up with a practical way to control the volatile gasses from
a drum retort. The valves I put on got tarred up badly and the batch failed.
Perhaps the gasses can be led into a floating gasholder and then back into
the firebox? And the excess gas can be used for other heat applications.
Gasification is beyond local knowledge and rural skills.
Appreciating your valid concerns about Earth, our home.
Bakary Jatta
Bwiam Village
The Gambia
----- Original Message -----
From: <terrapreta-request at bioenergylists.org>
To: <terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 10:21 AM
Subject: Terrapreta Digest, Vol 16, Issue 71
> 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: pulverizing charcoal (Kevin Chisholm)
> 2. Re: Question (folke G?nther)
> 3. Re: Amazon cattle ranging (lou gold)
> 4. Re: Amazon cattle ranging (MFH)
> 5. Re: pulverizing charcoal (Michael Bailes)
> 6. Re: pulverizing charcoal (Larry Williams)
> 7. Re: pulverizing charcoal (MFH)
> 8. Re: pulverizing charcoal (MFH)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 22:25:20 -0300
> From: Kevin Chisholm <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] pulverizing charcoal
> To: Roy Lent <rwlent at gmail.com>
> Cc: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> Message-ID: <48337A00.6070602 at ca.inter.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Dear Ray
>
> A gram of charcoal typically has an internal surface area of about 400
> square meters. A cube of charcoal weighing 1 Gram would have a
> dimension of about 1.44 cm on a side. The total apparent area of the
> external surface would be about 12 cm^2. If you cut it into 8 cubes,
> each of 1/2 the size, the apparent surface area would double to 24 cm^2.
> To get an apparent surface area equal to the internal surface area of
> the charcoal, you would have to reduce the size of the cube to 0.012/400
> of the original 1.44 edge dimension, or about .0000432 cm, or say
> .000432 mm, or say .432 microns. 200 Mesh Screen Size is about 72
> micron... about the size of normal flour. Crushing or breaking up
> charcoal will not make an appreciable or significant difference to
> active surface area.
>
> On the other hand, even moderate grinding will permit much more uniform
> distribution of the char.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Kevin
>
>
> Roy Lent wrote:
>> May,
>> The functions of the charcoal, especially in holding elements like
>> phosphorous, seem to involve its surface area. That automatically
>> suggests grinding it fine in order for it to start acting at full
>> force right from the beginning. This is obviously something to
>> research though.
>>
>> Roy
>>
>> On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 2:17 AM, folke G?nther <folkeg at gmail.com
>> <mailto:folkeg at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> * Why do you want to crush he char? I don't understand why it is
>> necessary.
>> Unless the pieces are so large that they cause an unbalance in the
>> distribution of the precious material, I just put them on/in the
>> ground/compost. The worms and the plant roots will do the job.
>> After a year, all pieces are conveniently small.
>> FG*
>>
>> 2008/5/20 May Waddington <may.waddington at gmail.com
>> <mailto:may.waddington at gmail.com>>:
>>
>> Ideas you do have! I think the party idea is the most
>> sustainable, though. Thank you!
>>
>> 2008/5/19 Roy Lent <rwlent at gmail.com <mailto:rwlent at gmail.com>>:
>>
>> I have to try as I'm supposed to be an idea type person.
>> Get a good sized piece of the heavy plasic sheeting used
>> to line land fills and such. Decide where to hold a
>> pulverizing party. Lay out the sheeting on the floor and
>> cover it with the lumpy charcoal. Fold the rest of the
>> sheeting on top and clamp the edges, This will have the
>> same sort of attraction as do the plastic bubbles in that
>> wrapping sheeting. Everyone loves to pop them! Everyone
>> one will love to search out and crunch the charcoal lumps.
>> Hold regular charcoal crunching parties or dances. The
>> kids will love it!
>>
>> Roy
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Proteja o meu email como eu protejo o seu! N?o facilite a
>> captura de endere?os para o envio de SPAMS. Utilize o Cco para
>> replicar mensagens. N?o divulgue mensagens sem limpar
>> endere?os anteriores e retire os "enc" e "fwd" dos campos de
>> assunto. Assim evitamos riscos de contamina??o! Grata.
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> NB :Send your mails to folkeg at gmail.com <mailto:folkeg at gmail.com>,
>> not to holon.se <http://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/
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Terrapreta mailing list
>> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
>> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
>> http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
>> http://info.bioenergylists.org
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 18:54:32 -0700
> From: folke G?nther <folkeg at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Question
> To: <terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
> Message-ID: <000e01c8bae5$9d735e80$d85a1b80$@com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Image posted to
> http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/index.php/v/folke/primevalforestmining.
> GIF.html?q=gallery
>
> Linked at: http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/folkeprimevalforestmining
>
> From: folke G?nther [mailto:folkeg at gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 1:06 AM
> To: lou gold
> Cc: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Question
>
>
>
> It is cattle ranching that is the problem (with stress on ranching). Too
> retain the forest diversity, you have to protect certain areas from the
> stress of he muzzle Let the forest re-grow. If you absolutely think you
> have
> to cut it down, do that and char the forest. Put the char and a seed-bank
> on
> muzzle-devastated land and let that land re-grow into a new forest. See
> the
> attached sketch Not on muzzling, but in mining. But it is almost the same
> from the forest point of view.
> But I don't think your projections are right. Post-peak world will be
> quite
> another than the one we are accustomed to.
> FG
>
> 2008/5/20 lou gold <lou.gold at gmail.com>:
>
> 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
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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/20080520/889ed10f/attachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 00:07:49 -0300
> From: "lou gold" <lou.gold at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Amazon cattle ranging
> To: "Nikolaus Foidl" <nfoidl at desa.com.bo>
> Cc: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> Message-ID:
> <90d45c6d0805202007j68a7c9ffsa2a6e10b3134f7cc at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> Oh boy Folke, since David Yarrow and I seem to be the tree-huggers who
> regularly contribute to this forum I can't help but think that your
> lecture
> is being delivered at least in part to me. So let me take the time to
> correct some of your statements that simply seem off-the-mark to me.
> *
> *
>>
>> * I know, everybody loves trees and it is a gut feeling for everybody
>> that
>> cutting trees is bad. *
>
>
> I don't know who the "everyone" is that you are refering to but it
> definitely does not include me. I am not against cutting trees and I am
> not
> against the logging industry. The problem is that somehow you really don't
> seem to see the forest for the trees.
>
> In fact, one can take a long term view of the earth's vegetative cover and
> see a ceaseless war between forestland and grassland. . The territory
> controlled by these two great vegetative kingdoms has shifted back and for
> across the earth many times due mostly to changing climatic conditions.
>
> In general, human beings have been soldiers in the army of the grasslands
> using all the weapons of "civilization" and "domestication" to achieve
> victory over the forest. In general, BUT NOT ALWAYS. Apparently, one of
> the
> great exceptions is to be found among -- you guessed it -- the Indios de
> Terra Preta -- who are thought to have had millions of people living in
> the
> central Amazon basin without ceaseless deforestation.
> *
> Deforestation sounds like a catastrophic event.
>
> *Well, some times it is and some times it is not*.* It is when it triggers
> climate change. Human deforestation created the climate shifts that
> resulted
> in the Sahara desert, making it uninhabitable by most plants and critters.
> A
> shift like that is catastrophic. When deforestation starts to trigger
> regional climate change we might prefer to keep a lot of the forest
> standing.
>
> *A grown established forest has neutral balance of fixation and loss, if
> the
> forest gets too old the danger of loosing all the stored biomass with a
> big
> scale fire is imminent and very often.*
>
> This is not true for the central Amazon basin where fire has historically
> been extremely rare due to heavy rainfall. And where does the rainfall
> come
> from? It comes from the transpiration of the trees in the forest. Without
> the forest, the climate shifts to drought as has already been ocurring in
> the Eastern Amazon. And drought triggers more fire, etc, etc in a positive
> feedback loop that can alter both regional and global climate in
> catastrophic ways.
>
> With all due respects for the important work that you are doing in Bolivia
> -- and the creative stewardship for both conservation and food production
> that it represents -- I've got to say that the lowland basin of the
> Eastern
> Amazon presents a radically different situation. Here is what Dan Nepstad
> from Woods Hole says about it:
>
> *Mongabay: **In Bali you also put out some rather dire projections for the
> Amazon in 2030. Could you elaborate on this?
>
> **Nepstad:* There are all these models (namely the Hadley model) pointing
> to
> the end of the century when there will be a big forest die-back in the
> Amazon. But before global warming is going to kick in there is going to be
> all sorts of damage from the droughts we are already seeing as well as
> deforestation, logging, and the fires that are part of that regime. To
> factor in these effects, we took our deforestation model, our logging
> model,
> and what we know about the effect of drought on tree mortality, and
> projected out the year 2030 using current climate patterns ? the last 10
> years repeated into the future. We found that by the year 2030, 55 percent
> of the forest will be either cleared or damaged ? I think 31 percent
> cleared
> and 24 percent damaged by either logging or drought, with a large portion
> of
> that damaged forest catching fire. This produces a huge amount of
> emissions.
> We're looking at 16-25 billion tons of carbon going into the atmosphere in
> a
> very short time frame -- the next 22 years. The scary thing is some of
> these
> assumptions are quite conservative.
> http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0124-nepstad.html
>
> *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.*
>
> In what possible scenario do you imagine that anyone seriously involved in
> these issues is trying to "save all the trees in the world"?
> OK, I'm glad to think about how we can be most creativily involved in
> earth
> changes INCLUDING DEFORESTATION but let's not clutter the discussion with
> assertions that simply are not true.
>
> Touch the earth and blessed be.
>
> lou
>
>>
>>
>>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> /attachments/20080521/a941f654/attachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 14:39:21 +1000
> From: "MFH" <mfh01 at bigpond.net.au>
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Amazon cattle ranging
> To: "'lou gold'" <lou.gold at gmail.com>, "'Nikolaus Foidl'"
> <nfoidl at desa.com.bo>
> Cc: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> Message-ID: <20080521043952.UZUK1196.nschwotgx02p.mx.bigpond.com at mfh>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Lou, as you say, there is much sense in the wise extraction of forest
> products. Trees don't live forever - they get old and die, are killed by
> lightning strikes, by insect damage and disease. The forest constantly
> recycles and renews.
>
>
>
> If, for example, 1/40th of the tree volume per hectare of a tropical
> forest
> is extracted annually, there will not be any noticeable degradation.
> Economics have something to do with the promotion of this as a system.
> Generally, the owners of the forests and the trees receive a pittance for
> the "stump" prices. One of our aims in PNG was to demonstrate to the
> landowners that the trees in their forests were akin to a bank account.
> Protect the capital, make a modest withdrawal from time to time, and this
> would be balanced by the new growth (interest). At that stage they were
> receiving $3/c.m. stumpage when the logger was getting $150/c.m. fob for
> round logs. One of the aims of providing small portable sawmills was to
> demonstrate the value difference. For a 5 c.m. log they could get as much
> as
> $250 for the sawn timber versus $15 as a round log. This reinforced the
> value of the trees and the value of the forest, and led to many landowner
> groups refusing to deal with loggers.
>
>
>
> I'm aware of the results of some of these projects some 15 years after
> commencement, and in the best of these the diversity and the vigour of the
> forest has been maintained. In some areas a comparison can be made to an
> adjacent block that has been industrially logged. From the air after 15
> years both areas look similarly vigorous, but on the ground the logged
> area
> is a mess of vines, creepers and (often exotic, i.e. foreign) pioneer
> species which have no commercial value. A reasonable estimate is that it
> will take 100 years for the area to return to the sort of species mix that
> existed prior to logging.
>
>
>
> So another approach is to work towards a wider realisation that trees are
> more valuable than the miserable royalties paid, and that forests have
> many
> additional economic values. Maybe this means that timber is too cheap -
> absolutely. Woodchip sells for a miserly few dollars/tonne at source.
>
>
>
> This can be looked at from many angles, e.g., how many people can live off
> a
> hectare of "managed" tropical forest, as compared to (a) how many can live
> off a hectare of 'slash and burn' agriculture after the 3rd year, or (b)
> how
> many from a cash crop such as cocoa or coffee. The assumption in the first
> instance would be limited timber extraction plus a range of non-timber
> forest products (fruits, nuts, shelter materials). Any of the calculations
> I
> did showed that the forest had more annual income value when left in place
> and managed.
>
>
>
> Max H
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org
> [mailto:terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of lou gold
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 May 2008 1:08 PM
> To: Nikolaus Foidl
> Cc: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Amazon cattle ranging
>
>
>
> Oh boy Folke, since David Yarrow and I seem to be the tree-huggers who
> regularly contribute to this forum I can't help but think that your
> lecture
> is being delivered at least in part to me. So let me take the time to
> correct some of your statements that simply seem off-the-mark to me.
>
> I know, everybody loves trees and it is a gut feeling for everybody that
> cutting trees is bad.
>
>
> I don't know who the "everyone" is that you are refering to but it
> definitely does not include me. I am not against cutting trees and I am
> not
> against the logging industry. The problem is that somehow you really don't
> seem to see the forest for the trees.
>
> In fact, one can take a long term view of the earth's vegetative cover and
> see a ceaseless war between forestland and grassland. . The territory
> controlled by these two great vegetative kingdoms has shifted back and for
> across the earth many times due mostly to changing climatic conditions.
>
> In general, human beings have been soldiers in the army of the grasslands
> using all the weapons of "civilization" and "domestication" to achieve
> victory over the forest. In general, BUT NOT ALWAYS. Apparently, one of
> the
> great exceptions is to be found among -- you guessed it -- the Indios de
> Terra Preta -- who are thought to have had millions of people living in
> the
> central Amazon basin without ceaseless deforestation.
>
> Deforestation sounds like a catastrophic event.
>
> Well, some times it is and some times it is not. It is when it triggers
> climate change. Human deforestation created the climate shifts that
> resulted
> in the Sahara desert, making it uninhabitable by most plants and critters.
> A
> shift like that is catastrophic. When deforestation starts to trigger
> regional climate change we might prefer to keep a lot of the forest
> standing.
>
> A grown established forest has neutral balance of fixation and loss, if
> the
> forest gets too old the danger of loosing all the stored biomass with a
> big
> scale fire is imminent and very often.
>
> This is not true for the central Amazon basin where fire has historically
> been extremely rare due to heavy rainfall. And where does the rainfall
> come
> from? It comes from the transpiration of the trees in the forest. Without
> the forest, the climate shifts to drought as has already been ocurring in
> the Eastern Amazon. And drought triggers more fire, etc, etc in a positive
> feedback loop that can alter both regional and global climate in
> catastrophic ways.
>
> With all due respects for the important work that you are doing in Bolivia
> -- and the creative stewardship for both conservation and food production
> that it represents -- I've got to say that the lowland basin of the
> Eastern
> Amazon presents a radically different situation. Here is what Dan Nepstad
> from Woods Hole says about it:
>
> Mongabay: In Bali you also put out some rather dire projections for the
> Amazon in 2030. Could you elaborate on this?
>
> Nepstad: There are all these models (namely the Hadley model) pointing to
> the end of the century when there will be a big forest die-back in the
> Amazon. But before global warming is going to kick in there is going to be
> all sorts of damage from the droughts we are already seeing as well as
> deforestation, logging, and the fires that are part of that regime. To
> factor in these effects, we took our deforestation model, our logging
> model,
> and what we know about the effect of drought on tree mortality, and
> projected out the year 2030 using current climate patterns - the last 10
> years repeated into the future. We found that by the year 2030, 55 percent
> of the forest will be either cleared or damaged - I think 31 percent
> cleared
> and 24 percent damaged by either logging or drought, with a large portion
> of
> that damaged forest catching fire. This produces a huge amount of
> emissions.
> We're looking at 16-25 billion tons of carbon going into the atmosphere in
> a
> very short time frame -- the next 22 years. The scary thing is some of
> these
> assumptions are quite conservative.
> http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0124-nepstad.html
>
> 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.
>
> In what possible scenario do you imagine that anyone seriously involved in
> these issues is trying to "save all the trees in the world"?
> OK, I'm glad to think about how we can be most creativily involved in
> earth
> changes INCLUDING DEFORESTATION but let's not clutter the discussion with
> assertions that simply are not true.
>
> Touch the earth and blessed be.
>
> lou
>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> /attachments/20080521/d3fea4fb/attachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 18:22:19 +1000
> From: "Michael Bailes" <michaelangelica at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] pulverizing charcoal
> To: "Terra Preta" <terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
> Message-ID:
> <7dcba7be0805210122u473f5b51v656fff9ac07026 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> [image: worm lawn aerate aerating fart bean chili mexican food dirt
> comics]
>
>
> Chili (sic) in the USA usually contains beans
> Someone could photoshop the can to "char"??
> *Gardening Cartoon # 2000-09-14* (41 of 73)
>
> Save this cartoon in your
> basket<http://www.offthemark.com/cart/add.php?pdate=2000-09-14&topic=none&keywords=gardening&browseall=false&resultsfrom=41>
>
> Shttp://www.offthemarkcartoons.com/search-results.php?topic=none&keywords=gardening&resultsfrom=41&browseall=false<http://www.offthemark.com/send.php?pdate=2000-09-14>
>
> end to a friend <http://www.offthemark.com/send.php?pdate=2000-09-14>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> /attachments/20080521/20561865/attachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 01:58:20 -0700
> From: Larry Williams <lwilliams at nas.com>
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] pulverizing charcoal
> To: "MFH" <mfh01 at bigpond.net.au>
> Cc: Miles Tom <terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>, folke G?nther
> <folkeg at gmail.com>, bakaryjatta <bakaryj at gamtel.gm>
> Message-ID: <6FD35D0F-E809-451A-B56D-4431FE5C7884 at nas.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> This photograph, taken by Richard Haard, in a garden situation seems
> to support the idea that the critters and the plant roots help to
> break charcoal apart. The larger dry piece of charcoal which the
> knife point is laying on was in the ground for nearly one year and it
> does not resemble the smaller piece of charcoal which had one small
> white flat worm (the white oval spot) and apparent plant roots
> attached to it. The larger dry piece of charcoal indicates little
> biological activity.
>
> I can only suggest that the dry charcoal was buried just after it was
> made. Likely it was a product of last spring's earthen mound kiln
> with no special attempt to wet, size, fertilize or inoculate it. Is
> it possible that pieces of charcoal can be in the ground for a year
> and not get saturated? Why?
>
> In my gardening activities, I have found a considerable number of
> charcoal pieces that, I believe, have been compacted by foot traffic
> during home construction. Usually this charcoal is found when
> draining systems are installed or repaired. These photographs are
> examples (here, here and here), also taken by Rich. These specific
> pieces could have been in the ground since the land was cleared for
> construction of the home some ninety years ago and were 4-6" (10-15
> cm) below the surface. This charcoal was 18" (45 cm) from an aged
> moss covered brick wall with no noticeable fire markings suggesting
> that the charcoal was buried for a period of time that was closer to
> the construction of the home than of recent origin.
>
> From my perspective, the placement of charcoal in the soil needs to
> meet certain requirements for it to interact with the soil's biology.
> I agree with Max and Folke that the charcoal is broken up by the
> local biology in due course. Soil compaction may likely stall the
> break up of charcoal (till the next ice age? I live in a location
> where the last ice age was fifteen thousand years ago and was a
> mile... 1600 meters thick ice sheet).
>
> Keep your eyes open for there is charcoal in more places than you
> might believe, just under your foot-------Larry (in the wet Pacific NW)
>
>
> -------------------------------------
> On May 20, 2008, at 3:26 PM, MFH wrote:
>
>> Worms feed by ?sucking? moist particles of organic matter. They
>> have no teeth. It appears that fine grains of soil or sand or char
>> are ingested to assist in the breakdown of the organic matter in
>> the worm?s intestines.
>>
>>
>>
>> It seems unlikely that worms could be directly involved in breaking
>> down large char pieces. That doesn?t mean that there isn?t a link.
>> If the moisture conditions are suitable and there is ample organic
>> matter then there will be worms, and worms will improve the soil,
>> and improved soil will mean more plant vigour, which will mean more
>> plant roots. And more plant roots will mean greater breakdown of
>> charcoal lumps, as the roots penetrate holes and gaps seeking
>> nutrients and moisture. The forces generated by expanding roots is
>> considerable, as evidenced domestically by broken concrete paths
>> and damaged pipes.
>>
>>
>>
>> And there are lots of roots. A mature rye plant has a total of
>> around 600 km. of roots.
>>
>>
>>
>> Max H
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org [mailto:terrapreta-
>> bounces at bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of folke G?nther
>> Sent: Wednesday, 21 May 2008 8:01 AM
>> To: Greg and April
>> Cc: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
>> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] pulverizing charcoal
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20080521/605c6664/attachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 19:13:18 +1000
> From: "MFH" <mfh01 at bigpond.net.au>
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] pulverizing charcoal
> To: "'Larry Williams'" <lwilliams at nas.com>
> Cc: 'Miles Tom' <terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>, 'folke G?nther'
> <folkeg at gmail.com>, 'bakaryjatta' <bakaryj at gamtel.gm>
> Message-ID: <20080521091348.DUNH1860.nschwotgx03p.mx.bigpond.com at mfh>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> ?Is it possible that pieces of charcoal can be in the ground for a year
> and
> not get saturated? Why??
>
>
>
> As per a previous comment, my guess is that some charcoal will have pores
> so
> fine that a surfactant is needed in the water to enable penetration. The
> surfactant could be fertilisers such as urea and ammonium sulphate,
> probably
> urine, and maybe runoff from animal manure. Char from different sources
> will
> have different pore sizes.
>
>
>
> Max H
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: Larry Williams [mailto:lwilliams at nas.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 May 2008 6:58 PM
> To: MFH
> Cc: folke G?nther; Miles Tom; bakaryjatta
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] pulverizing charcoal
>
>
>
> This photograph
> <http://www.flickr.com/photos/rchaard/2105167898/in/set-72157603621180276/>
> , taken by Richard Haard, in a garden situation seems to support the idea
> that the critters and the plant roots help to break charcoal apart. The
> larger dry piece of charcoal which the knife point is laying on was in the
> ground for nearly one year and it does not resemble the smaller piece of
> charcoal which had one small white flat worm (the white oval spot) and
> apparent plant roots attached to it. The larger dry piece of charcoal
> indicates little biological activity.
>
>
>
> I can only suggest that the dry charcoal was buried just after it was
> made.
> Likely it was a product of last spring's earthen mound kiln with no
> special
> attempt to wet, size, fertilize or inoculate it. Is it possible that
> pieces
> of charcoal can be in the ground for a year and not get saturated? Why?
>
>
>
> In my gardening activities, I have found a considerable number of charcoal
> pieces that, I believe, have been compacted by foot traffic during home
> construction. Usually this charcoal is found when draining systems are
> installed or repaired. These photographs are examples (here
> <http://www.flickr.com/photos/rchaard/537110594/sizes/o/> , here
> <http://www.flickr.com/photos/rchaard/537110588/sizes/o/> and here
> <http://www.flickr.com/photos/rchaard/537110592/sizes/o/> ), also taken by
> Rich. These specific pieces could have been in the ground since the land
> was
> cleared for construction of the home some ninety years ago and were 4-6"
> (10-15 cm) below the surface. This charcoal was 18" (45 cm) from an aged
> moss covered brick wall with no noticeable fire markings suggesting that
> the charcoal was buried for a period of time that was closer to the
> construction of the home than of recent origin.
>
>
>
>>From my perspective, the placement of charcoal in the soil needs to meet
> certain requirements for it to interact with the soil's biology. I agree
> with Max and Folke that the charcoal is broken up by the local biology in
> due course. Soil compaction may likely stall the break up of charcoal
> (till
> the next ice age? I live in a location where the last ice age was fifteen
> thousand years ago and was a mile... 1600 meters thick ice sheet).
>
>
>
> Keep your eyes open for there is charcoal in more places than you might
> believe, just under your foot-------Larry (in the wet Pacific NW)
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------
>
> On May 20, 2008, at 3:26 PM, MFH wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Worms feed by ?sucking? moist particles of organic matter. They have no
> teeth. It appears that fine grains of soil or sand or char are ingested to
> assist in the breakdown of the organic matter in the worm?s intestines.
>
>
>
> It seems unlikely that worms could be directly involved in breaking down
> large char pieces. That doesn?t mean that there isn?t a link. If the
> moisture conditions are suitable and there is ample organic matter then
> there will be worms, and worms will improve the soil, and improved soil
> will
> mean more plant vigour, which will mean more plant roots. And more plant
> roots will mean greater breakdown of charcoal lumps, as the roots
> penetrate
> holes and gaps seeking nutrients and moisture. The forces generated by
> expanding roots is considerable, as evidenced domestically by broken
> concrete paths and damaged pipes.
>
>
>
> And there are lots of roots. A mature rye plant has a total of around 600
> km. of roots.
>
>
>
> Max H
>
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org
> [mailto:terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of folke G?nther
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 May 2008 8:01 AM
> To: Greg and April
> Cc: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] pulverizing charcoal
>
>
>
> 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 <mailto:folkeg at gmail.com> G?nther
>
> To: May Waddington <mailto:may.waddington at gmail.com>
>
> Cc: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org ; Roy <mailto:rwlent at gmail.com> 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
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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/
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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/20080521/3fec4ff5/attachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 20:21:01 +1000
> From: "MFH" <mfh01 at bigpond.net.au>
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] pulverizing charcoal
> To: "'Larry Williams'" <lwilliams at nas.com>
> Cc: 'Miles Tom' <terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>, 'folke G?nther'
> <folkeg at gmail.com>, 'bakaryjatta' <bakaryj at gamtel.gm>
> Message-ID: <20080521102130.GYJD1860.nschwotgx03p.mx.bigpond.com at mfh>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Further on charcoals ability to take up water.
>
>
>
> Basically, if there is no water uptake then the char will serve little
> purpose as there will not be a suitable environment in the passageways for
> bacteria and fungal growth, nor for root penetration. So before adding
> your
> home made char to the garden add some to a bucket of water and if it
> floats
> you?ll need to add a surfactant.
>
>
>
> Max H
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: Larry Williams [mailto:lwilliams at nas.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 May 2008 6:58 PM
> To: MFH
> Cc: folke G?nther; Miles Tom; bakaryjatta
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] pulverizing charcoal
>
>
>
> This photograph
> <http://www.flickr.com/photos/rchaard/2105167898/in/set-72157603621180276/>
> , taken by Richard Haard, in a garden situation seems to support the idea
> that the critters and the plant roots help to break charcoal apart. The
> larger dry piece of charcoal which the knife point is laying on was in the
> ground for nearly one year and it does not resemble the smaller piece of
> charcoal which had one small white flat worm (the white oval spot) and
> apparent plant roots attached to it. The larger dry piece of charcoal
> indicates little biological activity.
>
>
>
> I can only suggest that the dry charcoal was buried just after it was
> made.
> Likely it was a product of last spring's earthen mound kiln with no
> special
> attempt to wet, size, fertilize or inoculate it. Is it possible that
> pieces
> of charcoal can be in the ground for a year and not get saturated? Why?
>
>
>
> In my gardening activities, I have found a considerable number of charcoal
> pieces that, I believe, have been compacted by foot traffic during home
> construction. Usually this charcoal is found when draining systems are
> installed or repaired. These photographs are examples (here
> <http://www.flickr.com/photos/rchaard/537110594/sizes/o/> , here
> <http://www.flickr.com/photos/rchaard/537110588/sizes/o/> and here
> <http://www.flickr.com/photos/rchaard/537110592/sizes/o/> ), also taken by
> Rich. These specific pieces could have been in the ground since the land
> was
> cleared for construction of the home some ninety years ago and were 4-6"
> (10-15 cm) below the surface. This charcoal was 18" (45 cm) from an aged
> moss covered brick wall with no noticeable fire markings suggesting that
> the charcoal was buried for a period of time that was closer to the
> construction of the home than of recent origin.
>
>
>
>>From my perspective, the placement of charcoal in the soil needs to meet
> certain requirements for it to interact with the soil's biology. I agree
> with Max and Folke that the charcoal is broken up by the local biology in
> due course. Soil compaction may likely stall the break up of charcoal
> (till
> the next ice age? I live in a location where the last ice age was fifteen
> thousand years ago and was a mile... 1600 meters thick ice sheet).
>
>
>
> Keep your eyes open for there is charcoal in more places than you might
> believe, just under your foot-------Larry (in the wet Pacific NW)
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------
>
> On May 20, 2008, at 3:26 PM, MFH wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Worms feed by ?sucking? moist particles of organic matter. They have no
> teeth. It appears that fine grains of soil or sand or char are ingested to
> assist in the breakdown of the organic matter in the worm?s intestines.
>
>
>
> It seems unlikely that worms could be directly involved in breaking down
> large char pieces. That doesn?t mean that there isn?t a link. If the
> moisture conditions are suitable and there is ample organic matter then
> there will be worms, and worms will improve the soil, and improved soil
> will
> mean more plant vigour, which will mean more plant roots. And more plant
> roots will mean greater breakdown of charcoal lumps, as the roots
> penetrate
> holes and gaps seeking nutrients and moisture. The forces generated by
> expanding roots is considerable, as evidenced domestically by broken
> concrete paths and damaged pipes.
>
>
>
> And there are lots of roots. A mature rye plant has a total of around 600
> km. of roots.
>
>
>
> Max H
>
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org
> [mailto:terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of folke G?nther
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 May 2008 8:01 AM
> To: Greg and April
> Cc: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] pulverizing charcoal
>
>
>
> 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 <mailto:folkeg at gmail.com> G?nther
>
> To: May Waddington <mailto:may.waddington at gmail.com>
>
> Cc: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org ; Roy <mailto:rwlent at gmail.com> 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
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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/
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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/20080521/35ef2182/attachment.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Terrapreta mailing list
> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
>
>
> End of Terrapreta Digest, Vol 16, Issue 71
> ******************************************
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.21/1458 - Release Date:
> 21/05/2008 07:21
>
>
More information about the Terrapreta
mailing list