In article ,
"Dioclese" NONE wrote:

1491
pg. 346

Despite the charcoal, terra preta is not a by-product of slash-and-burn
agriculture. To begin with, slash-and-burn simply does not produce
enough charcoal to make terra preta in the form of carbon dioxide.
Instead, Indians apparently made terra
preta by a process that Christoph Steiner, a University of Bayreuth soil
scientist, has dubbed "slash-and-char." Instead of completely burning
organic matter to ash, ancient farmers burned it incompletely to make
charcoal, then stirred the charcoal into the soil. In addition to its
benefits to the soil, slash-and-char releases much less carbon into the
air than slash-and-burn, which has large potential implications for
climate change. Trees store vast amounts of carbon in their trunks,
branches, and leaves. When they die or people cut them down, the carbon
is usually released into the atmosphere, driving global warming.
Experiments by Makoto Ogawa of the Kansai Environmental Engineering
Center, near Kyoto, Japan, demonstrated that charcoal retains its carbon
in the soil for up to fifty thousand years. "Slash-and-char is very
clever," Ogawa told me. "Nobody in Europe or Asia that I know of ever
understood the properties of charcoal in soil."
----

"Terra preta" is an intriguing idea that could give us immediate
benefits and bequeath them to our descendants as well. Additionally, the
idea of fixing CO2 in charcoal to alleviate global warming is very
timely. It looks like it is all win/win.
--

- Billy

As you pointed out, todays' slash and burn isn't working to produce the
amount of carbon needed in the soil for biochar. I submit in former times,
this was on much smaller scale and the increased the size of such an area
over much longer time. The scale is one of the things that important when
comparing then and now.

Another point is pilings of trees and other plants for burning. Its highly
unlikely that such were made in in a large cleared centralized area as is
done now in a large scale, rather, were the tree fell instead. And such
trees weren't appreciably broken down, if at all, to facilitate burning. No
bulldozers or chainsaws for facilitate these pilings and burning. So, the
yield of carbon to the ground back then is increased much over current
practices of making major bonfires with high heat yield that consume much
more of its fuel source. This billows carbon in the form of gases much more
per amount of carbon fuel available as the older method did not burn nearly
as well or completely So, I fail to make the association of clear and burn
techniques used now compared to those methods used over a 1000 years ago.
There is no association that I can see.
--
Dave
That is the opinion I got from reading the book "1491: New Revelations
of the Americas Before Columbus"
by Charles C. Mann
http://www.amazon.com/1491-Revelatio...mbus/dp/140003
2059/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239722303&sr=1-1

According to Mann, great areas of the Amazon basin had been terra formed
and were supporting large populations with developed orchards. Slash and
burn was a survival technique the locals used to escape their cities
which were being overwhelmed with European diseases after 1491.
--

- Billy
"For the first time in the history of the world, every human being
is now subjected to contact with dangerous chemicals, from the
moment of conception until death." - Rachel Carson

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WI29wVQN8Go

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1072040.html

Thanks, glad to know sugar maples, pawpaws(really want some), zinnias,
calendula, johnny jump ups, echinacea, lamb's ear(which grows wild here),
allium(which is onion/garlic if memory serves), etc...gives me ideas on how
to plant around them :-)

"phorbin" wrote in message
...
In article , phorbin1
@yahoo.com says...

Walnuts have juglone in the leaves, roots and bark which stunts the
growth of a number of species.

Look here for juglone tolerant plants and trees.


I'll try this again...

http://www.uwex.edu/ces/wihort/landscape/Juglone.htm

"Billy" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Dioclese" NONE wrote:

1491
pg. 346

Despite the charcoal, terra preta is not a by-product of slash-and-burn
agriculture. To begin with, slash-and-burn simply does not produce
enough charcoal to make terra preta in the form of carbon dioxide.
Instead, Indians apparently made terra
preta by a process that Christoph Steiner, a University of Bayreuth
soil
scientist, has dubbed "slash-and-char." Instead of completely burning
organic matter to ash, ancient farmers burned it incompletely to make
charcoal, then stirred the charcoal into the soil. In addition to its
benefits to the soil, slash-and-char releases much less carbon into the
air than slash-and-burn, which has large potential implications for
climate change. Trees store vast amounts of carbon in their trunks,
branches, and leaves. When they die or people cut them down, the carbon
is usually released into the atmosphere, driving global warming.
Experiments by Makoto Ogawa of the Kansai Environmental Engineering
Center, near Kyoto, Japan, demonstrated that charcoal retains its
carbon
in the soil for up to fifty thousand years. "Slash-and-char is very
clever," Ogawa told me. "Nobody in Europe or Asia that I know of ever
understood the properties of charcoal in soil."
----

"Terra preta" is an intriguing idea that could give us immediate
benefits and bequeath them to our descendants as well. Additionally,
the
idea of fixing CO2 in charcoal to alleviate global warming is very
timely. It looks like it is all win/win.
--

- Billy

As you pointed out, todays' slash and burn isn't working to produce the
amount of carbon needed in the soil for biochar. I submit in former
times,
this was on much smaller scale and the increased the size of such an area
over much longer time. The scale is one of the things that important
when
comparing then and now.

Another point is pilings of trees and other plants for burning. Its
highly
unlikely that such were made in in a large cleared centralized area as is
done now in a large scale, rather, were the tree fell instead. And such
trees weren't appreciably broken down, if at all, to facilitate burning.
No
bulldozers or chainsaws for facilitate these pilings and burning. So,
the
yield of carbon to the ground back then is increased much over current
practices of making major bonfires with high heat yield that consume much
more of its fuel source. This billows carbon in the form of gases much
more
per amount of carbon fuel available as the older method did not burn
nearly
as well or completely So, I fail to make the association of clear and
burn
techniques used now compared to those methods used over a 1000 years ago.
There is no association that I can see.
--
Dave
That is the opinion I got from reading the book "1491: New Revelations
of the Americas Before Columbus"
by Charles C. Mann
http://www.amazon.com/1491-Revelatio...mbus/dp/140003
2059/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239722303&sr=1-1

According to Mann, great areas of the Amazon basin had been terra formed
and were supporting large populations with developed orchards. Slash and
burn was a survival technique the locals used to escape their cities
which were being overwhelmed with European diseases after 1491.
--

- Billy
"For the first time in the history of the world, every human being
is now subjected to contact with dangerous chemicals, from the
moment of conception until death." - Rachel Carson

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WI29wVQN8Go

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1072040.html

I still find it hard to believe that for at least a thousand years these
peoples use what this person (Mann) calls a slash and burn technique that
equivocates to present "slash and burn" techniques.. Same term meaning
different things in different time periods. In fact, I call it convenient
conventionism for ease of understanding by scholars and others that have no
usatory knowledge (common sense developed by actual use and associative
knowledge of same in the past). So, the way I look at it, there is no basis
for the argument you propose. But, I'm not a smart as you, Billy...
--
Dave
Dependency on large banks is undermining your, your children's, and
grandchildren's future. Stop hiding behind the numbers and politicians...

In article ,
"Dioclese" NONE wrote:

"Billy" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Dioclese" NONE wrote:

1491
pg. 346

Despite the charcoal, terra preta is not a by-product of slash-and-burn
agriculture. To begin with, slash-and-burn simply does not produce
enough charcoal to make terra preta in the form of carbon dioxide.
Instead, Indians apparently made terra
preta by a process that Christoph Steiner, a University of Bayreuth
soil
scientist, has dubbed "slash-and-char." Instead of completely burning
organic matter to ash, ancient farmers burned it incompletely to make
charcoal, then stirred the charcoal into the soil. In addition to its
benefits to the soil, slash-and-char releases much less carbon into the
air than slash-and-burn, which has large potential implications for
climate change. Trees store vast amounts of carbon in their trunks,
branches, and leaves. When they die or people cut them down, the carbon
is usually released into the atmosphere, driving global warming.
Experiments by Makoto Ogawa of the Kansai Environmental Engineering
Center, near Kyoto, Japan, demonstrated that charcoal retains its
carbon
in the soil for up to fifty thousand years. "Slash-and-char is very
clever," Ogawa told me. "Nobody in Europe or Asia that I know of ever
understood the properties of charcoal in soil."
----

"Terra preta" is an intriguing idea that could give us immediate
benefits and bequeath them to our descendants as well. Additionally,
the
idea of fixing CO2 in charcoal to alleviate global warming is very
timely. It looks like it is all win/win.
--

- Billy

As you pointed out, todays' slash and burn isn't working to produce the
amount of carbon needed in the soil for biochar. I submit in former
times,
this was on much smaller scale and the increased the size of such an area
over much longer time. The scale is one of the things that important
when
comparing then and now.

Another point is pilings of trees and other plants for burning. Its
highly
unlikely that such were made in in a large cleared centralized area as is
done now in a large scale, rather, were the tree fell instead. And such
trees weren't appreciably broken down, if at all, to facilitate burning.
No
bulldozers or chainsaws for facilitate these pilings and burning. So,
the
yield of carbon to the ground back then is increased much over current
practices of making major bonfires with high heat yield that consume much
more of its fuel source. This billows carbon in the form of gases much
more
per amount of carbon fuel available as the older method did not burn
nearly
as well or completely So, I fail to make the association of clear and
burn
techniques used now compared to those methods used over a 1000 years ago.
There is no association that I can see.
--
Dave
That is the opinion I got from reading the book "1491: New Revelations
of the Americas Before Columbus"
by Charles C. Mann
http://www.amazon.com/1491-Revelatio...mbus/dp/140003
2059/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239722303&sr=1-1

According to Mann, great areas of the Amazon basin had been terra formed
and were supporting large populations with developed orchards. Slash and
burn was a survival technique the locals used to escape their cities
which were being overwhelmed with European diseases after 1491.
--

- Billy
"For the first time in the history of the world, every human being
is now subjected to contact with dangerous chemicals, from the
moment of conception until death." - Rachel Carson

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WI29wVQN8Go

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1072040.html

I still find it hard to believe that for at least a thousand years these
peoples use what this person (Mann) calls a slash and burn technique that
equivocates to present "slash and burn" techniques.. Same term meaning
different things in different time periods. In fact, I call it convenient
conventionism for ease of understanding by scholars and others that have no
usatory knowledge (common sense developed by actual use and associative
knowledge of same in the past). So, the way I look at it, there is no basis
for the argument you propose. But, I'm not a smart as you, Billy...

I'm inclined to agree with you. Amazonians started slashing and burning
about five hundred years ago as a way to escape their cities which had
become incubators for European diseases. Slash and burning doesn't allow
one to stay in the same area too long because the soil rapidly loses the
nutrients that it has because of the laterite soil. The "terra preta"
comes from a stable culture that doesn't migrate, doesn't slash and
burn, but slowly added the charcoal into the soil and created orchards.
Slash and burn vs. slash and char. This isn't fun any more. I quit.
--

- Billy
"For the first time in the history of the world, every human being
is now subjected to contact with dangerous chemicals, from the
moment of conception until death." - Rachel Carson

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WI29wVQN8Go

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1072040.html