[Terrapreta] Terrapreta Digest, Vol 16, Issue 24
James Thomas
jthomas at yakama.com
Wed May 28 13:13:33 CDT 2008
Reply Re: structure and function and English Sparrow landing.
I experienced a similar event to the sparrow landing in the newly
planted tree.with the good Doctor Jerry Franklin. Although in that case
a providential event occurred to emphasize the point. I was in a
field day workshop with Doctor Franklin in Oregon as he was speaking
about structure and function in Old Growth and Managed Forests. He was
expounding at length about structure from Old Growth offering a life
raft effect to numerous other biota as well as serving as a source of
long term organic matter. Also how a logging operation or salvage
operation after a fire could and should take the structure and function
concept into the timber sale planning consideration, to essentially
prevent the life raft from sinking. As he was speaking, a Northern
Spotted Owl landed behind him in a tree and promptly brought the
lecture to a halt.; although we all realized this was a prime example of
what was being discussed.
Similarly,beneath a large tree in my yard native shrubs I never planted
abound and thrive. This is because birds like to perch and sing and feed
and poop and reproduce in the tree. The combination of fertilizer and
seeds in their droppings leads to establishment of the native shrubs in
my yard. The structure of the large tree leads to function, that is the
Tree in essence serves as a life raft for a host of other biota and
functions.
I think the same is occurring with the terra preta; it serves as a life
raft; offering structure, which in turn supports other functions. We may
find that the chemical properties or terra preta or biochar in soil
aren't as important as the physical properties of offering a life raft
for soil biota to carry out their functions. /jmt..
terrapreta-request at bioenergylists.org wrote:
> Send Terrapreta mailing list submissions to
> terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
>
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> terrapreta-request at bioenergylists.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> terrapreta-owner at bioenergylists.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Terrapreta digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Soil Food Web (Larry Williams)
> 2. Re: Soil Food Web (Sean K. Barry)
> 3. (nature of pottery shards, linkage to copice and pollard wood
> management) (James Thomas)
> 4. Re: Soil Food Web (Larry Williams)
> 5. Re: DEFORESTATION guy is crazy (MFH)
> 6. Re: interesting situation (MFH)
> 7. Re: Press release: limitations on charcoal as a carbon sink
> (William Carr)
> 8. Re: interesting situation (MFH)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 9 May 2008 10:48:53 -0700
> From: Larry Williams <lwilliams at nas.com>
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Soil Food Web
> To: "Hunt, Tony" <HuntT at transfieldservices.com>
> Cc: Miles Tom <terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>, bakaryjatta
> <bakaryj at gamtel.gm>
> Message-ID: <24C76356-203A-417D-9BB1-EC392262ACA4 at nas.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> yep! tony your on target. years ago, i noted in my readings on steam
> ecology how one specific insect used a spacial area over a stream
> that was ten feet off the water, that is, the insect needed a
> decaying log of a certain size that was overhanging the waters of the
> stream. a very specific structural requirement.
>
> ---------
> a great "ah haw" happen on a landscaping job for a local TV station,
> kvos, in bellingham. we were planting two 6-7' flowering plum trees
> on the back side of some communication discs. after the trees were
> planted, staked and a small water basin was created around the trunk,
> i placed the tools and debris in a wheel barrow and walked away. at
> 10 -15' from the last tree planted, i turned around to see how the
> trees looked, as i did an english sparrow landed in the branches of
> one of the trees. the first tree had been in place for under 30
> minutes and the second tree for 10 minutes.
>
> comments made much earlier regarding forest ecology and comments at a
> later workshop on mine restoration sites made sense with this event.
>
> the previous weekend to planting the trees at the kvos site I had
> been in a restoration conference in portland (oregon, usa) where one
> of the speakers had said that "structure leads to function". the
> speaker was restoring mine sites in utah and was referring to planted
> shrubs whose branches were, when established, were used by spiders to
> catch insects. he also noted that in the nutrient poor mind sites
> that the shrubs acted as a collector of nutrients and moisture (dew).
> wind blown organics lodged around the stem of the shrubs and helped
> to retain soil moisture and provide habitat.
>
> the landing of the english sparrow in the just-planted tree clarified
> problems that I was having in understanding the significance of
> function and structure in forest ecology. a year earlier jerry
> franklin and chris maser (pacific northwest forest researchers) were
> discussing these concepts and their significance in the forest
> ecology. i was puzzled. these researchers had not placed a real event
> to the concepts of function and structure. i was unable to use their
> information.
>
> the landing of the english sparrow in the just-planted tree clarified
> problems that I was having in understanding the significance of
> function and structure in forest ecology. the phrase, "structure
> leads to function" and the sparrow landing in the just-planted tree
> made clear to me it's importance.
>
> when charcoal with it's pore spaces are occupied with microbes and
> when charcoal, consisting of carbon binding sites for nutrient ions,
> is used then the structure, charcoal, hosts the functions of
> microbes, fungi, roots and nutrients.
>
> what a neat process and consider it's potential if replicated-------
> larry
>
>
> p.s. could someone explain entropy in this process? does dr. wardle's
> work express some aspect of entropy?
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------
> On May 8, 2008, at 10:24 PM, Hunt, Tony wrote:
>
>
>> Hi All
>>
>>
>>
>> I?ve just been reading the discussion about Elaine Ingham?s
>> thoughts on biochar and its benefits to soil (or lack thereof!).
>> The view She puts forward, that ?Charcoal, by itself, as an
>> addition to soil, doesn't contribute much besides physical
>> structure? seems to miss the point that physical structure is
>> itself tremendously important to organisms. The comparison with
>> coral reefs is an apt one, and I think that the description of
>> biochar addition to soil as ?building a coral reef in the soil? is
>> spot on. Coral reef itself is just a network structure of calcium
>> carbonate, and by itself adds little to the productivity of the
>> water column in which it is situated. However, what it does do is
>> provide STRUCTURE in an environment that otherwise lacks it, and so
>> a water body characterised by low nutrient content and low
>> biological productivity (i.e. shallow tropical seas) instead
>> becomes one of the most diverse and productive ecosystems on
>> earth. Furthermore, this effect can be reproduced artificially, as
>> any number of artificial reefs around the world has demonstrated.
>> Whether they are concrete structures, sunken ships or just bunches
>> of old tyres tied together, they don?t contribute anything but
>> physical structure, yet they have a startling effect on the
>> productivity and biodiversity of the surrounding water column. I
>> can?t see any reason why adding biochar to soils that are otherwise
>> lacking in physical structure wouldn?t have a similar effect.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards
>>
>>
>>
>> Tony Hunt
>> Transfield Services
>> E: huntt at transfieldservices.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "This email and any attachments are confidential and are for
>> the intended addressee[s] only. Unauthorised use of this
>> communication is prohibited. If you have received this
>> communication in error, please notify the sender and remove
>> them from your system. Confidentiality is not waived or lost
>> by reason of the mistaken delivery to you. Before opening or
>> using any attachments, it is your responsibility to check them
>> for viruses and defects."
>>
>> Thank You.
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20080509/53431042/attachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 9 May 2008 13:34:46 -0500
> From: "Sean K. Barry" <sean.barry at juno.com>
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Soil Food Web
> To: "Hunt, Tony" <HuntT at transfieldservices.com>, "Larry Williams"
> <lwilliams at nas.com>
> Cc: Miles Tom <terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>, bakaryjatta
> <bakaryj at gamtel.gm>
> Message-ID: <AABECKGLNAHXJQNS at smtpout04.vgs.untd.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> Hi Larry,
>
> You say:
> when charcoal with it's pore spaces are occupied with microbes and when charcoal, consisting of carbon binding sites for nutrient ions, is used then the structure, charcoal, hosts the functions of microbes, fungi, roots and nutrients.
>
> I like yours and Tony's comments on structure. The corral reef is an apt analogy to biochar in soil. It is just a physical thing, though. There is NO chemical use by organisms on coral reefs of the calcium carbonate in coral reefs. If there was, then the reef would disappear. I don't think that charcoal itself interacts chemically with microbes or the nutrient ions in soils, either. The charcoal has physical impacts on the soil structure (greatly increased "enclosed" surface area I suspect is the greatest addition), but it is not chemically active, per se.
>
> CEC in soil is generally increased by the addition of soil organic matter and by some clays which both do have more "binding sites" for cations of nutrients like Calcium and Potassium, etc. The number of "binding sites" (negatively charge sites attracting positively charged cations) is measured in Million equivalents per gram Meq/g, meaning the number of millions of negative charges per gram of the soil. Charcoal carbon does not have high numbers of negative charges on its surface and so does not increase CEC directly when it is added to soils.
>
> Charcoal carbon, when added to soil does appear to increase the growth in populations of soil microbes and the activity of soil microbes in the soil, leading to an increase in soil organic matter, and hence an increase in CEC.
>
> Regards,
>
> SKB
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: /attachments/20080509/e1a0149d/attachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 09 May 2008 12:27:25 -0700
> From: James Thomas <jthomas at yakama.com>
> Subject: [Terrapreta] (nature of pottery shards, linkage to copice and
> pollard wood management)
> To: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> Message-ID: <4824A59D.6040400 at yakama.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> I can't help but ask this question: although the original archaeologist
> who started the interest in Terra Preta in the Amazon was unfortunately
> brought down by a burglar's bullet, surely there is an archaeologist, or
> even a modern day potter(s) who could provide some insight with regard
> to whether the "pottery shards" would consist of mud and corn root
> balls simply gathered at the field where pyrolysis was to be performed
> then slathered over the pile of corn stalks or if the "pottery shards"
> are actual pottery shards from kiln fired pots. If so, wouldn't charcoal
> be a natural fuel source for heating a pottery kiln? Which brings to
> mind an interesting proposition from me who *knows* very little about
> pottery craft but who possesses a boundless imagination. What if a green
> (meaning meaning air dried but unfired) pot was formed from wet clay,
> then filled with charcoal and lit, in lieu of firing in a kiln?. If so
> maybe some of the pots would crack during the firing process. Then if
> by just observation it was noted that crops grew better where such
> charcoal laden pots wee discarded.. well you can fill in the blanks. In
> summary we can speculate about whether pottery is from the charcoal
> making process or from actual pottery by asking a potter. In addition my
> daughter who is currently living and working in Honduras tells me that
> some native families make and sell charcoal because that is what many
> folks use to cook with, so the technology is not lost. In Europe,
> especially England, woodsmen practiced coppicing or pollarding of
> hardwoods such as hazel nut ash and oak. They created value added
> products to sell and piled the wood scrap or poles in stacks then
> covered them with turves and lit them to create charcoal for both
> cooking and heating fuel and to provide fuel for metal smelting. This
> was before coal and coke production via essentially a pyrolysis process
> to smelting of ore came into vogue As I understand the process these
> woodsmen were referred to as "bodgers" in England. Because of the
> nature of the coppicing or pollarding process, the deciduous trees and
> shrubs would regrow from dormant buds or root buds which in general
> added considerably to the life spans of the trees and shrubs involved.
> I have observed wild hazel nut bushes in my area be either mowed or
> burned then regenerate from root buds. Typically the regrowth is
> straighter, hence more usable for human purposes. So following this
> train of thought, isn't it possible that bodgers also sold charcoal for
> agricultural purposes in the United Kingdom and continental Europe, and
> secondly, moving across the globe, isn't it possible that coppicing or
> pollarding would have worked for long ago Amazon Natives (or even
> present natives) or do the deciduous trees there simply not regrow when
> so managed? I have a few missionary friends who live in Brazil and they
> tell me that slash and burn sites for native agriculture in Brazil
> generally look just the same as previously in a few years after the
> slash and burn. Now, mind you, these are missionaries who come from a
> family with a new England Oxen farming background, so I don't know if
> they can distinguish if indeed these are re-sprouts from the same trees
> that were originally there or restocking from seeds or simply root
> invasion or even if indeed the recolonization with vegetation is
> actually the same tree species. However, they do know a fair amount
> about agriculture and timber harvest via hand and/or draft animals; so I
> give their opinions due credit. But I can't help but wonder: did these
> long-ago Amazon Natives practice coppicing and/or pollarding and if so,
> did they also use the waste wood from such management for charcoal for
> pottery kilns or cooking fuel or or to fire their pots as I described?
> Maybe they put charcoal in pots to cook food with, and on occasion the
> pots shattered.
>
> Modern day replicators of Stone Age Archery have been able to whack down
> a three or four inch elm tree in just a few minutes with a sharp heavy
> stone and make a usable hunting bow from the small tree in just a few
> days. Similarly with making arrows. (Look in Traditional Archers Bible,
> Volume Three). I refuse to believe that this technology was only limited
> to Europe or North America. So why not imagine in Terra Preta Land:
> groves of trees and shrubs managed via coppicing or pollarding to
> provide small wood for human needs, and this would include bows and
> arrows or other weapons and tools _and_ for production of charcoal.
> Think about it, with just simple hand tools and no large sawmills to
> turn large tropical hardwood trees into boards, if you wanted to build
> a house and furnish it, why not use small diameter flexible, coppiced
> wood covered with thatch as building materials to keep yourself and
> family in hearth and home. Such methods are quick, efficient and
> sustainable.
>
> Now I don't know the nature of the construction materials of the cities
> that the expedition headed by Spanish Conquistador Orrellana encountered
> 500+ years BP,in his expedition down the Amazon; whether they were
> constructed with wood and thatch, (maybe coppiced or pollarded), adobe
> or stone, but , my daughter tells me that huts built with plastered
> mud, then roofed with thatch or tin sheets supported by small wooden
> beams are used in Honduras. (Thin metal roof sheeting is preferred over
> thatch because a dangerous human parasite can live in the thatch). Mud
> huts is the common term for these homes. Coppiced wood would provide
> easily handled roof beams or thatch support.
>
> I think I will just have to somehow travel to my friend's home in Brazil
> when I have enough leave accumulated and investigate the slash and burn
> and/or possible coppice/ pollard with charcoal production scenario for
> myself. In summary there are several viable options for the generation
> of charcoal and the pottery shards, but if we stop and think about the
> subject and then actually consult with some modern day bodgers, who may
> reside in either the United Kingdom or in the Amazon, if such folks
> still exist, and some modern day potters and some archaeologist/
> geologist types who could tell us much about the mineral and chemical
> derivation of the pottery shards, well we could have some real answers
> instead of just speculating endlessly, while safely ensconced in the
> comfort of our computer stations with coffee mug in hand; drinking
> coffee from Brazil, which coffee was likely harvested by some poor
> native who likely knows more about the Terra Preta situation than all
> of us combined. .
>
> For my purposes, _*/I want some biochar now/*_ please ( a ton or two or
> I'll just have to make my own in a backyard barrel pyrolysis unit ) and
> figure out how to cleanly burn the syngas and biofuel in the smoke so I
> can experiment with the effects on cropped soils right here and now. I
> need real answers not endless debate about whether th big oil or big
> agriculture or big energy interests foresee a future for biochar
> applied to soils.
> /jmt
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 9 May 2008 13:13:22 -0700
> From: Larry Williams <lwilliams at nas.com>
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Soil Food Web
> To: "Sean K. Barry" <sean.barry at juno.com>
> Cc: Miles Tom <terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>, bakaryjatta
> <bakaryj at gamtel.gm>
> Message-ID: <24A884B4-181E-447C-AC30-E69E2304C2BB at nas.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Sean, list-------Yes, if charcoal has few binding sites, chemically,
> with available nutrients then what is the role of those nutrients in
> the charcoal for microbes? Also, how would one explain the transfer
> of nutrients from the tree roots to the fungus, to the microbes and
> the reverse route back to the tree roots?
>
> Is this a chemical communication route also. I haven't found a
> research paper to read about communication between plants and I am
> assuming that it is a chemical process. Curious-------Larry
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
> On May 9, 2008, at 11:34 AM, Sean K. Barry wrote:
>
>
>> Hi Larry,
>>
>> You say:
>> when charcoal with it's pore spaces are occupied with microbes and
>> when charcoal, consisting of carbon binding sites for nutrient
>> ions, is used then the structure, charcoal, hosts the functions of
>> microbes, fungi, roots and nutrients.
>>
>> I like yours and Tony's comments on structure. The corral reef is
>> an apt analogy to biochar in soil. It is just a physical thing,
>> though. There is NO chemical use by organisms on coral reefs of
>> the calcium carbonate in coral reefs. If there was, then the reef
>> would disappear. I don't think that charcoal itself interacts
>> chemically with microbes or the nutrient ions in soils, either.
>> The charcoal has physical impacts on the soil structure (greatly
>> increased "enclosed" surface area I suspect is the greatest
>> addition), but it is not chemically active, per se.
>>
>> CEC in soil is generally increased by the addition of soil organic
>> matter and by some clays which both do have more "binding sites"
>> for cations of nutrients like Calcium and Potassium, etc. The
>> number of "binding sites" (negatively charge sites attracting
>> positively charged cations) is measured in Million equivalents per
>> gram Meq/g, meaning the number of millions of negative charges per
>> gram of the soil. Charcoal carbon does not have high numbers of
>> negative charges on its surface and so does not increase CEC
>> directly when it is added to soils.
>>
>> Charcoal carbon, when added to soil does appear to increase the
>> growth in populations of soil microbes and the activity of soil
>> microbes in the soil, leading to an increase in soil organic
>> matter, and hence an increase in CEC.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> SKB
>>
>>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: /attachments/20080509/a2404266/attachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Sat, 10 May 2008 07:03:04 +1000
> From: "MFH" <mfh01 at bigpond.net.au>
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] DEFORESTATION guy is crazy
> To: "'Biopact'" <biopact at biopact.com>, "'Benjamin Domingo Bof'"
> <benjaminbof at yahoo.com.ar>, <terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
> Message-ID: <20080509210324.ORIH14647.nskntotgx01p.mx.bigpond.com at mfh>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Lorenzo,
>
>
>
> I?m stunned by the figures you have listed. Presumably there are restraints
> however, e.g. lack of water, lack of infrastructure, distance from markets
> or ports, nutrient deficiencies,,,,,
>
>
>
> But the opportunities for agricultural development must be vast ? why aren?t
> the Doles of the world interested?
>
>
>
> Max H
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org
> [mailto:terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Biopact
> Sent: Friday, 9 May 2008 11:28 PM
> To: Benjamin Domingo Bof; terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] DEFORESTATION guy is crazy
>
>
>
> Thanks for this article. It goes to show some people with power will not
> hesitate to use crises to push destruction.
>
> Using the food crisis to legitimize deforestation is outrageous.
>
> What's more, deforestation guy is a bit crazy when he says there's no more
>
> land for agriculture on this planet.
>
> All he should do is take a look at the FAO's Terrastat database and he will
> see there are huge tracts of non-forest land currently not being used across
>
> Africa.
>
> A quick list of selected countries:
>
> -Number indicates percentage of potential arable land actually in use (check
>
> below for total number of hectares of potential arable land available in
> Africa):
>
> Angola: currently uses only 4% (it's a huge country, so that leaves tens of
> milllions of hectares; to be precise: 84,605 million hectares)
>
> Benin: 19.3%
>
> Botswana: 4.6
>
> Burkina Faso: 17.5
>
> Burundi: 83.5
>
> Cameroon: 19.6
>
> CAR: 4.2 (very large country; that leaves 45,867 million hectares)
>
> Chad: 9.9
>
> Congo D. R.: 4.7 ( a country the size of Western Europe; that leaves: 81,931
>
> million hectares, while keeping 80 million hectares of pristine forest
> intact;
> research shows the DRC can produce food for 3 billion people)
>
> Congo Republic: 0.7
>
> Cote d'Ivoire: 14.1
>
> Djibouti: 0
>
> Equatorial Guinea: 14.0
>
> Eritrea: 88.0
>
> Ethiopia: 25.6
>
> Gabon: 2.6
>
> Gambia: 21.9
>
> Ghana: 23.6
>
> Guinea: 5.5
>
> Guinea-Buissau: 14.7
>
> Kenya: 28.5
>
> Lesotho: 88.4
>
> Liberia: 6.0
>
> Madagascar: 8.7
>
> Malawi: 25.1
>
> Mali: 9.4
>
> Mauritania: 15.1
>
> Mozambique: 5.0 (a huge country; that leaves 60,364 million hectares)
>
> Namibia: 5.6
>
> Niger: 35.1
>
> Nigeria: 49.4
>
> Rwanda: 100
>
> Senegal: 17.7
>
> Sierra Leone: 13.7
>
> Somalia: 42.8
>
> South Africa: 46.9
>
> Sudan: 15 (Africa's largest country; its fertile South has 73,753 million
> hectares available)
>
> Swaziland: 23.7
>
> Tanzania: 5.2 (huge: that leaves 63,785 million hectares)
>
> Togo: 56.6
>
> Uganda: 48.0
>
> Zambia: 9.0 (large: that leaves 53,198 million hectares)
>
> Zimbabwe: 11.7 (once the bread basket of Africa; huge potential left)
>
> TOTAL: Total potential arable land currently not being used for agriculture
> in Africa: 952,243 million hectares - almost a billion hectares available.
>
> Add that you can easily double or triple African smallholders' output with
> very basic means (access to seed, fertilizer, other inputs and outputs, and
> in many cases: biochar).
>
> Abusing the food crisis to make a case for deforestation in the Amazon is
> shameful. This food crisis should be used to promote the modernisation of
> agriculture in Africa.
>
> Cheers,
> Lorenzo
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Benjamin Domingo Bof
> To: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 12:14 AM
> Subject: [Terrapreta] DEFORESTATION TO PRODUCE FOODS?
>
>
> Interview with Blairo Maggi: "Will you leave humanity starving or occupy new
> areas to produce food?" - 05/08/2008
>
> Locality: S?o Paulo - SP
> Source: Amazonia.org.br
> Link: http://www.amazonia.org.br
>
>
> Thais Iervolino
>
> After having criticized the Mato Grosso deforestation report, released by
> the National Institute of Space Research (INPE), and making statements
> defending deforestation as a solution to the food crisis, the governor of
> the state of Mato Grosso, Blairo Maggi, had an exclusive interview with the
> site Amazonia.org.br.
>
> Last week, the newspaper Folha de S. Paul published an article in which he
> claimed that one of the possible solutions to the food crisis would be
> deforestation.
>
> My statement has been made within the food crisis context. As a matter of
> fact, the world does not have more area to increase food production. In
> Brazil, there are many conducive areas to some form of agriculture, such as
> the west of Sao Paulo and the east of Mato Grosso do Sul. But they are not
> very good areas for food agriculture.
>
> For soybeans, beans, maize and sunflower, these areas are considered
> marginal. Those areas do not benefit from very regular rainfall so the risks
> involved with food production is very important. But if you have sugar cane
> in this region, the plantation would do quite well.
>
> The return on investment in those food production places are not very good.
> Thus Mato Grosso uses only 8% of its land for food agriculture. Brazil, as a
> whole, uses a relatively small area in comparison to what it could use.
>
> Currently we have managed to grow our productivity, in an average of 1% per
> year. But consumption has grown in a range of 3% to 4% per year. In the long
> term, it just does not work. Then it has to be planed forward. In the
> future, we must have a responsible discussion. Will you let the humanity
> starving or occupy new areas to produce food?
>
> And the areas that exist for the incorporation of agriculture are not very
> large. The people think: "Oh, we will occupy the Amazon to produce food and
> ethanol". It is not possible. In the whole Amazon, only a small portion can
> be use and serve for this [planting].
>
> Again: is it possible to increase productivity if consumption increases
> greatly. The food crisis is real. In my assessment, Brazil is making its own
> lesson. We are growing. Over the last 20 years, we increased our production
> from 30 million tonnes to 120 million tonnes. We are feeding the country
> population, there are no problems of supply, we are even selling food for
> the rest of the world.
>
> You mentioned that in the future it will be necessary to clear-cut. What is
> the prospect of this "future"?
> I think that we can maintain the growth pace, with gains in biotechnology
> and productivity during about ten years. Until that time we can keep things
> as they are.
>
> Then we will have to choose between planting in rainy areas, where
> production is guaranteed, or occupy marginal areas, which bring many
> problems for farmers. The lack of rain causes important losses in Sao Paulo
> or in Mato Grosso do Sul. To have food in these regions, we must make a
> policy of guaranteed incomes and prices, if not the producers will colapse.
>
> The MT will take any measure to contain the food crisis?
> We can not do anything more than what we actually do. To produce more, we
> need access to new areas. Even the MT producers have decided that they will
> not increase any more the planting areas. Firstly because of the
> environmental issues. Then because, for more than 20 or 30 years, the world
> eats a very cheap food, and this brings debts for agriculture. The decision
> is that you can not open new areas, or only in case of a great agreement,
> because we can not do it in illegality.
>
> Recently your State has been quite criticised about the deforestation
> problem. What do you think of the policies that the Ministry of Environment
> is making to solve it?
> If you look at the MT deforestation graphics, since 1984, you will not see
> deforestation levels lower than those of 2005. The reduction since 2005 has
> been constant. In the latter period, the data showed 120 km ?, 140 km ? of
> deforestation, which are around 12 thousand hectares. In terms of
> territorial size it is very small. Now the problem is not the size but the
> illegality.
>
> The policies of the State government have followed the legislation, and the
> Ministry decision of blocking these areas is correct. Those who clear-cut
> will think a bit more: "I'll clear, I'll spend money and then I won't be
> able to use the property".
>
> I think that this is the policy. We have also deliver the zoning to the
> assembly. I hope that this document will be able to guide the State of MT,
> showing where agriculture can be made, where are the conservation areas,
> etc.
>
> What is your opinion on the Arc of Fire operation in the State?
> The numbers that were placed as deforestation, of the Deforestation
> Detection in Real-time (Deter, Detec??o de Desmatamento em tempo real),
> shows a huge decline [after the operation]. The MT participated in about 80%
> of the reduction, although I still continue contesting the data.
>
> I also gave a document to the President of the Republic. We will make an
> audit, I mean, the government should make an audit about the data that have
> been given.
>
> The state of the MT does not agree with those numbers. Until today we did
> not agree because the methodology was different from the one traditionally
> employed. If you collect data with a methodology and then change it, the
> results are different.
>
> I want to, and I have insisted on that, correct statistically the data of MT
> which are not those that have been disclosed. The MT effort against
> deforestation is very important. Producers who have address, CPF (Register
> of Individual) and liability do not make this. The problem is that we have
> land grabbing, people invade the land, clear-cut a zone and then think that
> they own it. So in addition to the environmental issue, we also have the
> land division problem, and the State fight to put this into order.
>
> What measures are taken by the government of MT to reduce deforestation?
> The same than the Ministry of the Environment takes: surveillance, control
> by satellite, we have people in the field, helicopter flying, we sue all the
> people who deforest in the wrong way. We are not only responsible for the
> deforestation, but also for the control of the forest in the State because
> this task has been transferred by Ibama in 2005.
>
> Our territory is really huge, but we do not have a lot of resources. We have
> an helicopter, this is very expensive, we don't have financial help from the
> Government [federal], or anyone. Thus, within the possibilities that we
> have, we make what is in our competence. Figures from the reduction of
> deforestation, that occurs here since 2005, clearly show that the government
> has done the necessary actions to reduce the deforestation in the state.
>
> The IBAMA disclosed the list of the embargoed areas. Into it, the institute
> points out that your company would be embargoed...
> First, nobody is embargoed. It is a list of irregularities. Specifically,
> the Amaggi [the Governor of the MT company], bought an area of waste wood.
> Since it has an industry in Cuiaba, we need steam for the energy to the
> soybeans crushing. That's why we bought this area of waste wood. The IBAMA,
> then, asked for the environmental licensing.
>
>
> A staffmemeber who was 'in the know' regarding the events [of the company]
> sent a copy of the process, the Institute received it, but still it wanted
> to sue the company. Then, it is not a deforestation issue but a bureaucratic
> one, between our Secretary of the Environment and the company.
>
> And you had to pay a fine?
> I do not know because I am not in the company. It seems that they have given
> a fine, but the company is appealing because it had no fault in this
> process.
>
> Could you Comment the fact that you have received the prize "Gold Chainsaw",
> delivered by the non-governmental organisation Greenpeace, which is
> equivalent to the Champion of Deforestation Award.
> Firstly, it was a long time ago. I even say to the producers here that this
> chainsaw is not mine but theirs. Because my company, for over ten years, has
> not opened any new areas.
>
> Now, as governor, it is logical that I represent the state for good things
> and bad things as well. The other day I had a meeting with the timber
> industry and they said that they have no link with deforestation. I said to
> them that they were also responsible because they buy illegal timber, and
> this supports the continuation of defrestation.
>
> I am obliged to accept, with resignation , the chainsaw award because I am
> the governor of the state. But not as the owner of my company. This I do not
> accept in any way.
>
>
>
>
>
> Los referentes m?s importantes en compra/venta de autos se juntaron:
> Demotores y Yahoo!. Ahora comprar o vender tu auto es m?s f?cil.
> Visit? http://ar.autos.yahoo.com/
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: 269.23.10/1421 - Release Date: 7/05/2008
> 17:23
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: /attachments/20080510/69f44eeb/attachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Sat, 10 May 2008 07:40:41 +1000
> From: "MFH" <mfh01 at bigpond.net.au>
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] interesting situation
> To: "'Jim Joyner'" <jimstoy at dtccom.net>,
> <Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
> Message-ID: <20080509214102.OZCI14647.nskntotgx01p.mx.bigpond.com at mfh>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Jim,
>
>
>
> I think others have answered your questions, and the links to Albrecht will
> give greater detail.
>
>
>
> In particular I agree with the comment that "there's little point in adding
> charcoal until the base deficiencies have been addressed." Maybe char will
> capture nutrients like Ca, P and K (without intervention) over long periods
> like hundreds of years, but I need results a lot quicker than that.
>
>
>
> To give an idea of the work ahead of me, here are some more test results -
> actuals first and ideals second:
>
>
>
> OM 1.2 10
>
> N 0.5 15
>
> P 4 60
>
> Ca 389 1347
>
> K 76 150
>
>
>
> Somewhat amazingly there is reasonable pasture of native grasses in an
> adjoining paddock, and the uncleared areas of the block are wall-to-wall
> with vigorous, healthy native trees, particularly eucalypts. These have
> extensive tap roots and there may well be very different nutrient
> availability at 1m, 5m and 10m depths. Eucs also do not like P.
>
>
>
> I'm trying to correct the imbalances by organic means, just to make it a
> little more of a challenge.
>
>
>
> Max H
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org
> [mailto:terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Jim Joyner
> Sent: Saturday, 10 May 2008 12:20 AM
> To: Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] interesting situation
>
>
>
> Thanks max.
>
> That statement doesn't appear on A&L's analysis so I've never seen it. I
> guess what I don't understand is, how do you figure the amount of calcium or
> magnesium you need in the soil from a ratio? You would still need to know
> what one figure or the other.
>
> Also, I don't understand what the ratio represents. Why a higher ration in
> heavy soils than light soils? (By light, I assume you mean sandy or silty.)
>
> Using percentages of base saturation, I can calculate to the pound how much
> of either I need. And, interestingly, the ratio of 60-70% to 10-12% is about
> 5:1/7:1 at the extremes. Getting it much closer one way or the other is
> going to be difficult when you are talking about what is actually in the
> soil. I mean, there can be a lot of variation from one foot to the next.
> Looking back through my soil tests correlated to response, I can't see any
> differences, hence, I am puzzled by what is "critical" and why.
>
> I'm don't mean to chide you on this. There must be something new going in
> soil analysis. I'm just trying to ferret out the kosher from BS.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jim
>
> MFH wrote:
>
> Jim,
>
> My recent soil tests give data like:
>
> Calcium (Mehlich III) 389ppm (ideal = 1347)
> Magnesium (Mehlich III) 384ppm (ideal = 157)
> Ca/Mg ratio 0.61:1 (ideal = 5.15:1)
>
> The explanatory notes include:
>
> CA/MG Ratio: This is the single most important fertility ratio and should
> be around 5:1 for light soils and 7:1 in heavier soils. Low Ca/Mg ratios are
> usually indicators of serious problems. These include compacted soils,
> bacteria that can't proliferate, and weed take over. An appropriate Ca/Mg
> ratio will be an obvious consequence of the successful achievement of cation
> balance.
>
> >From other sources, if the CA/MG ratio is below 2, it is difficult for the
> plant to take up potassium.
>
> There's lots of web info available, e.g:
> www.spectrumanalytic.com/support/library/ff/Ca_Mg_ratio.htm
>
> Cheers, Max H
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org
> [mailto:terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Jim Joyner
> Sent: Friday, 9 May 2008 10:05 AM
> Cc: Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] interesting situation
>
> MFH wrote:
>
>
> Calcium/Magnesium ratio is critical. Should be 5:1 for light soils and 7:1
> in heavier soils.
>
> Max H
>
>
> Max,
>
> I think calcium and magnesium are critical in the soil but I have never
> seen soil tests express it that way. I thought the ideal
> calcium/magnesium would be a a percentage of base saturation (70%/12%).
> Having said that, however, when Richard got his numbers, I believe the
> results showed less calcium as a % than that, but "high". Is there
> something you know that I don't?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jim
>
>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: /attachments/20080510/1b32258c/attachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Fri, 9 May 2008 17:48:33 -0400
> From: William Carr <Jkirk3279 at qtm.net>
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Press release: limitations on charcoal as a
> carbon sink
> To: Terra Preta <Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
> Message-ID: <4BFB2A04-D89F-42BE-85B7-6C858FDF3357 at qtm.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
>
>
> On May 4, 2008, at 5:59 PM, Kevin Chisholm wrote:
>
>
>> Why do you feel that the present bacteria are not beneficial, and
>> that you would benefit from killing them off? Do you have any
>> bacteria that you know to be harmful?
>>
>
>
> I didn't mention that? The tomato plants in my garden always die.
>
> I've narrowed the causal agent down to Clavibacter Michiganensis spp.
> Michiganensis.
>
> (Not surprising, as I live in SW Michigan.)
>
> C.M.M kills by infecting the plant, then depositing plasmids in the
> plant's vascular system.
>
> The plasmids build up until the leaves can't get nutrients. So the
> lowest branches die off first, the leaves developing brown dead spots.
>
> The tomato vine doesn't wilt, so it's not Fusarium or Verticulum
> Wilt. The vine will be just fine, although eventually with no
> branches.
>
>
> Growing inside a greenhouse helps a lot, since there's no rain to
> splash mud up on the leaves.
>
> I built a greenhouse tunnel, but I'd need to build four more to
> fulfill the space requirements for tomatoes.
>
> My latest idea was to copy the strawberry producers: plant the
> tomatoes, run soaker hoses, and cover with plastic, then straw.
>
>
>
>
> Another possibility might be using a leaf sealant. I've tried
> diluted egg white, as it contains lysozyme, an enzyme that kills these
> bacteria.
>
>
> That saved one of the two infected seedlings I tried it on and it's
> still thriving on my windowsill two years later. Each use makes the
> leaves shiny and hard, but they survive long enough for new foliage to
> emerge. I had my first Red Robin cherry tomato of the season last
> night. Delicious !
>
>
>
> I've also heard of a study where researchers used Turtle oil as a
> preventative. The biochemical process was unclear, but it was
> suggested that the Omega-3 acids in the oil had a beneficial effect.
> Therefore I intend to try diluted Cod Liver Oil, as Codfish seem to be
> less endangered than Sea Turtles.
>
>
>
> But the only approach that I KNOW works is to use solarization to
> pasteurize the soil.
>
> But that wastes both of the months of June and July, so it would only
> work if I had enough space to crop rotate, which I really don't.
>
>
> Something I read after my original post suggests that burning the soil
> will transform soil N and K into bio-available forms. Interesting
> plus.
>
>
>
> **************
>
>
> Oh, and as regards the fertility of Forest soils: I was taught in
> school that it takes a deciduous forest 1,000 years of falling leaves
> to build up a single inch of topsoil.
>
> But this is Michigan... so.....
>
> Ten Thousand years of that, and the ******* glaciers come along and
> scrape all the good topsoil to Northern Indiana !
>
> And then the cycle repeats.
>
> I'm sure pine forests have completely different chemistry -- that may
> explain the variance in soils.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Sat, 10 May 2008 08:12:19 +1000
> From: "MFH" <mfh01 at bigpond.net.au>
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] interesting situation
> To: "'Jim Joyner'" <jimstoy at dtccom.net>,
> <Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
> Message-ID: <20080509221240.IUJM1995.nskntotgx02p.mx.bigpond.com at mfh>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> More info here: www.fromthesoilup.com.au/soil/ca-mg-ratio
>
>
>
> M
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org
> [mailto:terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Jim Joyner
> Sent: Saturday, 10 May 2008 12:20 AM
> To: Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] interesting situation
>
>
>
> Thanks max.
>
> That statement doesn't appear on A&L's analysis so I've never seen it. I
> guess what I don't understand is, how do you figure the amount of calcium or
> magnesium you need in the soil from a ratio? You would still need to know
> what one figure or the other.
>
> Also, I don't understand what the ratio represents. Why a higher ration in
> heavy soils than light soils? (By light, I assume you mean sandy or silty.)
>
> Using percentages of base saturation, I can calculate to the pound how much
> of either I need. And, interestingly, the ratio of 60-70% to 10-12% is about
> 5:1/7:1 at the extremes. Getting it much closer one way or the other is
> going to be difficult when you are talking about what is actually in the
> soil. I mean, there can be a lot of variation from one foot to the next.
> Looking back through my soil tests correlated to response, I can't see any
> differences, hence, I am puzzled by what is "critical" and why.
>
> I'm don't mean to chide you on this. There must be something new going in
> soil analysis. I'm just trying to ferret out the kosher from BS.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jim
>
> MFH wrote:
>
> Jim,
>
> My recent soil tests give data like:
>
> Calcium (Mehlich III) 389ppm (ideal = 1347)
> Magnesium (Mehlich III) 384ppm (ideal = 157)
> Ca/Mg ratio 0.61:1 (ideal = 5.15:1)
>
> The explanatory notes include:
>
> CA/MG Ratio: This is the single most important fertility ratio and should
> be around 5:1 for light soils and 7:1 in heavier soils. Low Ca/Mg ratios are
> usually indicators of serious problems. These include compacted soils,
> bacteria that can't proliferate, and weed take over. An appropriate Ca/Mg
> ratio will be an obvious consequence of the successful achievement of cation
> balance.
>
> >From other sources, if the CA/MG ratio is below 2, it is difficult for the
> plant to take up potassium.
>
> There's lots of web info available, e.g:
> www.spectrumanalytic.com/support/library/ff/Ca_Mg_ratio.htm
>
> Cheers, Max H
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org
> [mailto:terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Jim Joyner
> Sent: Friday, 9 May 2008 10:05 AM
> Cc: Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] interesting situation
>
> MFH wrote:
>
>
> Calcium/Magnesium ratio is critical. Should be 5:1 for light soils and 7:1
> in heavier soils.
>
> Max H
>
>
> Max,
>
> I think calcium and magnesium are critical in the soil but I have never
> seen soil tests express it that way. I thought the ideal
> calcium/magnesium would be a a percentage of base saturation (70%/12%).
> Having said that, however, when Richard got his numbers, I believe the
> results showed less calcium as a % than that, but "high". Is there
> something you know that I don't?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jim
>
>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: /attachments/20080510/70bc70db/attachment.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Terrapreta mailing list
> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
>
>
> End of Terrapreta Digest, Vol 16, Issue 24
> ******************************************
>
>
More information about the Terrapreta
mailing list