Your email was read to me using Voice on the Go. Go to www.voiceonthego.com
> Original Message: > --------------------------------- > > From: [email protected] > Sent: November 2, 2011 11:57:47 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Stoves Digest, Vol 15, Issue 5 > > Send Stoves mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Stoves digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Char vs. fertilizer (Frank Shields) > 2. Re: Char vs. fertilizer ([email protected]) > 3. Re: Char vs. fertilizer (nari phaltan) > 4. Live-Wall Wood chip Bin (Alex English) > 5. Re: Live-Wall Wood chip Bin (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott) > 6. Re: [biochar-policy] Re: Char vs. fertilizer (Kevin) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 12:29:04 -0700 > From: "Frank Shields" <[email protected]> > To: "'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'" > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Stoves] Char vs. fertilizer > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Great question. > > > > A small amount of plant available nutrients on depleted soils will increase > growth of biomass and energy crops. These nutrients are not from fossil > source like many inorganic fertilizers. So I suggest the best means is that > organic materials having a high percentage of nutrients are better used to > grow more woody plants to be used as fuel. Charring these materials and we > make many nutrients, like P, unavailable and some like K and N go off into > the air. Composting these materials further increases the amount of available > nutrients by better holding on to the nitrogen and planting may take place > immediately -compared to green manures. > > > > Reducing fossil fuels (and inorganic fertilizers) and it becomes more > important to make best use of our nutrients. So I suggest composting is still > the best means to handle ag residues and use the compost to grow woody fuel > crops. > > > > Regards > > Frank > > Soil Control Lab > > > > > > > > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of nari phaltan > Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2011 1:39 AM > To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves > Subject: [Stoves] Char vs. fertilizer > > > > Dear Stovers, > > > > What will be a better strategy for agricultural residues: to produce char or > organic fertilizer? > > > > Is there any quantitative studies done for both value production and reducing > environmental considerations? > > > > Both char and organic fertilizer will go towards enriching the soil. > > > > Cheers. > > > > Anil > > > > > -- > Nimbkar Agricultural Research Institute (NARI) > Tambmal, Phaltan-Lonand Road > P.O.Box 44 > Phaltan-415523, Maharashtra, India > Ph:91-2166-222396/220945 > e-mail:[email protected] <mailto:e-mail%[email protected]> > [email protected] > > http://www.nariphaltan.org > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20111102/669f1b34/attachment-0001.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2011 00:01:26 +0000 (UTC) > From: [email protected] > To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves > <[email protected]> > Cc: biochar-policy <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Stoves] Char vs. fertilizer > Message-ID: > > <1441939329.1565230.1320278486041.javamail.r...@sz0133a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > Kevin (cc 2 lists): > > 1. Your response to my one sentence response to Anil's two questions below > has nothing to do with stoves. If you want to continue discussions on whether > excess atmospheric carbon can/will/should be a reason for accelerated growth > of Biochar, I urge you to join our sister list: "Biochar-policy" (being > cc'd). > > 2. The important part of Anil's two questions (which contained the words that > I answered (see below) in a personal "belief" (as opposed to your denial) > sense were the two now underlined (my choices for emphasis) and CAPITALIZED > conjunctions: > > > By Ani l: "What will be a better strategy for agricultural residues: to > produce char OR organic fertilizer? > > > Is there any quantitative studies done for both value production AND reducing > environmental considerations? > > > The answers that Anil seeks are on the four Biochar lists and the IBI site > (and dozens of other sites) almost every day. I gave the shortest appropriate > answer I could for the stoves list. > > 3. B y far the biggest " environmental consideration " we have in the world > today is anthropogenic global warming (AGW). If Anil meant anything else, I > would be greatly surprised. When I have seen you (mostly a biochar detractor) > defending your Biochar PR advice on any of the biochar lists, then I will > take your charge of my irresponsibility seriously. > > 4. I also look forward to your claiming on any biochar list that IBI is > "irresponsible" when saying, exactly as did I, that Biochar can effectively > remove excess CO2 - as one of two equal parts of IBI's Biochar definition.. > > 5. You referred to my "belief" several times - presumably to contrast with > "denier". I also "believe" in the law of gravity. I believe in evolution. I > can't think of another word to use in questions of science. I'm ready to > discuss the words "belief" and "denier" any time you wish when talking about > the sciences related to AGW and/or Biochar. > > 6. I am not going to respond to any of your admonishments below except to say > I find no merit in any of them. I'd be glad to explain that "any" statement > on the "biochar-policy" list. "Stoves" is not an appropriate venue for that > dialogue. > > 7. To stovers: I hope/think most of you will recognize that we will see a lot > more clean and income-generating stoves (charcoal-making stoves) when the USA > catches up with the rest of the world. By "catchup", I mean gaining a > realistic view of the problems associated with AGW ( the subject matter of > the three messages following). Charcoal-making stoves can play a huge and > early role in solving this AGW problem. Carbon negativity is very different > from carbon neutrality. I believe Anil asked a good question and I would not > change my answer. > > Ron > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Kevin" <[email protected]> > To: "Discussion of biomass cooking stoves" <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 2011 11:42:09 AM > Subject: Re: [Stoves] Char vs. fertilizer > > > Dear Ron > > Anil raises a very important question that should not be dismissed with a > mere belief. I suggest that you are doing Biochar a great disservice by > persisting on "beating the Climate Change Drum", while disregarding the > circumstances where biochar additions to the soil will actually benefit the > Farmer and Grower. Biochar usage will escalate dramatically in circumstances > where biochar can be clearly and palpably demonstrated as being cost > effective to the Farmer and Grower. In my opinion, Biochar usage will > virtually collapse, if its use depends on the Carbon Credit Payment > incentives actually received by the Farmer or Grower. > > The general state of the World Economies, and the complexity of system > administration is such that it is extremely unlikely that Carbon Credit > Payments will actually reach the Farmer or Grower to a degree that such > payments will encourage the use of biochar. > > Furthermore, I feel it is irresponsible to promote increased usage of Biochar > in Agriculture, without knowing the circumstances where biochar additions > will actually be of benefit to the Farmer and Grower. Some of the Farmers > that people like Anil, Dr. Reddy, Dr. Karve, and Peter Ongele wish to help > are literally one crop away from starvation; a "disappointing yield" or a > crop failure can literally have lethal consequences. Sadly, all too many > "Biochar Promoters" infer that "Biochar = Terra Preta". Evidence I have from > personal tests, confirmed by others, shows that "Biochar Only", in a > disadvantaged soil will DECREASE plant growth. However, others have indeed > shown that under certain circumstances, biochar appears to be beneficial to > the Farmer or Grower, PROVIDING that other soil amendments needed by the soil > are added at the same time. Such "other soil amendments" or additives could > include: > * Organic matter > * Manure > * Fertilizer > * Compost > * Urine > * Microbes > * Sugar > * Silt and Clay > * Etc > > Biochar alone is NOT a panacea for the Farmer or Grower. While it can be PART > of a solution in some cases, it can only result in an improvement if it > brings something to the soil, that the soil lacks. For example, there is no > point in adding charcoal to a soil that is deficient in organic matter, in > that charcoal is NOT organic matter... it is "mineralized carbon" that > originated from biomass, and it cannot feed the soil life-forms necessary for > plant growth. > > In my opinion, Anil's question is extremely relevant, and it deserves to be > answered in a responsible manner... with evidence from competently structured > and implemented tests, rather than being dismissed with an unsupported > belief. Using a soil that is otherwise "good", with the single exception that > it is deficient in organic matter, the tests should be structured to > determine if the Farmer or Grower gets superior growth results under the > following test conditions: > A: A given amount of organic matter is added to the soil per square meter. > or > B: The SAME amount of organic matter per square meter is charred to produce > biochar, and the resulting biochar is added to the test plot. > > Note that this simple test will only prove the difference between organic > matter and biochar... it does not answer the question posed by Anil. Given > that an "Organic Fertilizer" is "Organic matter plus a "package of > additives"", the above simple test could be expanded in a manner where > identical "additive packages" were added to the test plots in the "A Plots" > (organic matter) and "B Plots" (biochar from the same amount of organic > matter). > > Kevin > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: Ron Larson > To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves > Cc: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves > Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2011 7:21 AM > Subject: Re: [Stoves] Char vs. fertilizer > > > Anil (cc list) > > > > > I believe Biochar will do the better job of removing excess atmospheric CO2 > and of improving soil productivity over the long term. > > > Ron > > Sent from my iPad > > On Nov 2, 2011, at 2:38 AM, nari phaltan < [email protected] > wrote: > > > > <blockquote> > > Dear Stovers, > > > What will be a better strategy for agricultural residues: to produce char or > organic fertilizer? > > > Is there any quantitative studies done for both value production and reducing > environmental considerations? > > > Both char and organic fertilizer will go towards enriching the soil. > > > Cheers. > > > Anil > > > -- > Nimbkar Agricultural Research Institute (NARI) > Tambmal, Phaltan-Lonand Road > P.O.Box 44 > Phaltan-415523, Maharashtra, India > Ph:91-2166-222396/220945 > e-mail:[email protected] > [email protected] > > http://www.nariphaltan.org > > > > > > <blockquote> > > _______________________________________________ > Stoves mailing list > > to Send a Message to the list, use the email address > [email protected] > > to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page > http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org > > > for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site: > http://www.bioenergylists.org/ > > > </blockquote> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Stoves mailing list > > to Send a Message to the list, use the email address > [email protected] > > to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page > http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org > > > for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site: > http://www.bioenergylists.org/ > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2012.0.1834 / Virus Database: 2092/4589 - Release Date: 11/01/11 > </blockquote> > > _______________________________________________ > Stoves mailing list > > to Send a Message to the list, use the email address > [email protected] > > to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page > http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org > > > for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site: > http://www.bioenergylists.org/ > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20111103/b924f4fc/attachment-0001.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2011 07:19:12 +0530 > From: nari phaltan <[email protected]> > To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Stoves] Char vs. fertilizer > Message-ID: > <CAGeG2tC+J88=+im9=s+LL685vC8cGAa=hpfu0d0wqmf7lqk...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > *Thanks Kevin. Very nicely put. Comparative studies can be done on various > crops but I have a feeling that it will take a very long time to show the > differences. That is why I asked this question whether any data exists.* > * > * > *Thanks and warm regards.* > * > * > *Anil > * > On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 11:12 PM, Kevin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > ** > > Dear Ron > > > > Anil raises a very important question that should not be dismissed with a > > mere belief. I suggest that you are doing Biochar a great disservice by > > persisting on "beating the Climate Change Drum", while disregarding the > > circumstances where biochar additions to the soil will actually benefit the > > Farmer and Grower. Biochar usage will escalate dramatically in > > circumstances where biochar can be clearly and palpably demonstrated as > > being cost effective to the Farmer and Grower. In my opinion, Biochar usage > > will virtually collapse, if its use depends on the Carbon Credit Payment > > incentives actually received by the Farmer or Grower. > > > > The general state of the World Economies, and the complexity of system > > administration is such that it is extremely unlikely that Carbon Credit > > Payments will actually reach the Farmer or Grower to a degree that such > > payments will encourage the use of biochar. > > > > Furthermore, I feel it is irresponsible to promote increased usage of > > Biochar in Agriculture, without knowing the circumstances where biochar > > additions > > will actually be of benefit to the Farmer and Grower. Some of the Farmers > > that people like Anil, Dr. Reddy, Dr. Karve, and Peter Ongele wish to help > > are literally one crop away from starvation; a "disappointing yield" or a > > crop failure can literally have lethal consequences. Sadly, all too many > > "Biochar Promoters" infer that "Biochar = Terra Preta". Evidence I have > > from personal tests, confirmed by others, shows that "Biochar Only", in a > > disadvantaged soil will DECREASE plant growth. However, others have indeed > > shown that under certain circumstances, biochar appears to be beneficial to > > the Farmer or Grower, PROVIDING that other soil amendments needed by the > > soil are added at the same time. Such "other soil amendments" or additives > > could include: > > * Organic matter > > * Manure > > * Fertilizer > > * Compost > > * Urine > > * Microbes > > * Sugar > > * Silt and Clay > > * Etc > > > > Biochar alone is NOT a panacea for the Farmer or Grower. While it can > > be PART of a solution in some cases, it can only result in an improvement > > if it brings something to the soil, that the soil lacks. For example, there > > is no point in adding charcoal to a soil that is deficient in organic > > matter, in that charcoal is NOT organic matter... it is "mineralized > > carbon" that originated from biomass, and it cannot feed the soil > > life-forms necessary for plant growth. > > > > In my opinion, Anil's question is extremely relevant, and it deserves to > > be answered in a responsible manner... with evidence from competently > > structured and implemented tests, rather than being dismissed with an > > unsupported belief. Using a soil that is otherwise "good", with the single > > exception that it is deficient in organic matter, the tests should be > > structured to determine if the Farmer or Grower gets superior growth > > results under the following test conditions: > > A: A given amount of organic matter is added to the soil per square meter. > > or > > B: The SAME amount of organic matter per square meter is charred to > > produce biochar, and the resulting biochar is added to the test plot. > > > > Note that this simple test will only prove the difference between organic > > matter and biochar... it does not answer the question posed by Anil. Given > > that an "Organic Fertilizer" is "Organic matter plus a "package of > > additives"", the above simple test could be expanded in a manner where > > identical "additive packages" were added to the test plots in the "A Plots" > > (organic matter) and "B Plots" (biochar from the same amount of organic > > matter). > > > > Kevin > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > *From:* Ron Larson <[email protected]> > > *To:* Discussion of biomass cooking stoves<[email protected]> > > *Cc:* Discussion of biomass cooking stoves<[email protected]> > > *Sent:* Wednesday, November 02, 2011 7:21 AM > > *Subject:* Re: [Stoves] Char vs. fertilizer > > > > Anil (cc list) > > > > > > I believe Biochar will do the better job of removing excess atmospheric > > CO2 and of improving soil productivity over the long term. > > > > Ron > > > > Sent from my iPad > > > > On Nov 2, 2011, at 2:38 AM, nari phaltan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > *Dear Stovers,* > > * > > * > > *What will be a better strategy for agricultural residues: to produce > > char or organic fertilizer?* > > * > > * > > *Is there any quantitative studies done for both value production and > > reducing environmental considerations?* > > * > > * > > *Both char and organic fertilizer will go towards enriching the soil.* > > * > > * > > *Cheers.* > > * > > * > > *Anil > > * > > > > -- > > Nimbkar Agricultural Research Institute (NARI) > > Tambmal, Phaltan-Lonand Road > > P.O.Box 44 > > Phaltan-415523, Maharashtra, India > > Ph:91-2166-222396/220945 > > e-mail:[email protected] > > <[email protected]>[email protected] > > > > <http://www.nariphaltan.org>http://www.nariphaltan.org > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Stoves mailing list > > > > to Send a Message to the list, use the email address > > [email protected] > > > > to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page > > > > http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org > > > > for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site: > > http://www.bioenergylists.org/ > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Stoves mailing list > > > > to Send a Message to the list, use the email address > > [email protected] > > > > to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page > > > > http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org > > > > for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site: > > http://www.bioenergylists.org/ > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > No virus found in this message. > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > Version: 2012.0.1834 / Virus Database: 2092/4589 - Release Date: 11/01/11 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Stoves mailing list > > > > to Send a Message to the list, use the email address > > [email protected] > > > > to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page > > > > http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org > > > > for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site: > > http://www.bioenergylists.org/ > > > > > > > > > -- > Nimbkar Agricultural Research Institute (NARI) > Tambmal, Phaltan-Lonand Road > P.O.Box 44 > Phaltan-415523, Maharashtra, India > Ph:91-2166-222396/220945 > e-mail:[email protected] > [email protected] > > http://www.nariphaltan.org > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20111103/1ac80493/attachment-0001.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2011 22:43:32 -0400 > From: Alex English <[email protected]> > To: [email protected], [email protected], > Discussion of biomass cooking stoves <[email protected]> > Subject: [Stoves] Live-Wall Wood chip Bin > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > > If your working on small-ish scale processes using wood chips and flow > resistance feed stocks, then you might be interested in a 'minimum' > tech, live-wall bin we made mostly out of our 'bone yard' of used > parts. The idea is to scale it up, vertically, to a height the loader > can still reach, with a capacity of around 1 ton of dry chips, while > still being able move it with a skid cart or fork lift. Currently > (intended:) it uses one 1hp gear motor. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJIZFY_N7U4 > > > Alex > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 23:22:19 -0400 > From: "Crispin Pemberton-Pigott" <[email protected]> > To: "'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'" > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Stoves] Live-Wall Wood chip Bin > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Dear Alex > > What a lovely piece of work. The material looks as if there are a lot of > fines. > > Have you tried a 'gripper' other than the weldmesh on the chip-side of the > wall? > > I was thinking that downward (45 deg) facing spikes (perhaps a long bolt > with the head sticking out and two nuts on the other end) would bite a > little harder and slip by if not needed. It was kinda hung up there at the > end. > > If you want to save money and power, do not use a right angle (worm) drive. > They are not very efficient though common and popular. If you get a triple > reduction in-line box you will be able to get the correct speed (now that > you know what it is) without that first gear-up, thus eliminating one chain > and sprocket set. > > The worm drives run hot too. > > See http://industrial-gearbox.com/cone-drive.php and the third picture down > on the right. You can eliminate the end bearing on the shaft and use the > gearbox instead. To solve left-right lateral movement put a shoulder on the > shaft and a thread on the end poking through. Note that it will be 'foot > mounted' in your case. For price and reliability I found Leroy-Somer to be > good value but you have to go with what you can get serviced. > > If you really need a variable speed (because you want a sensor on the line > to make it 'catch up' when it falls behind) don't get a variable speed > drive. Put on a 3-phase motor and a controllable inverter (push button on > the cover or a dial elsewhere). Wonderful things. High starting torque and > you can make them run any speed you like because the controller generates > 3-phase from a single phase input at any frequency you want. You can happily > run a motor up to 6000 RPM so get a 4 pole one and a gearbox to suit your > central speed at 60 Hz. > > It looks so good running in slo-mo like that. > > Well done. > Crispin > > +++++++++++ > > If your working on small-ish scale processes using wood chips and flow > resistance feed stocks, then you might be interested in a 'minimum' > tech, live-wall bin we made mostly out of our 'bone yard' of used parts. > The idea is to scale it up, vertically, to a height the loader can still > reach, with a capacity of around 1 ton of dry chips, while still being able > move it with a skid cart or fork lift. Currently > (intended:) it uses one 1hp gear motor. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJIZFY_N7U4 > > > Alex > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2011 00:57:45 -0300 > From: "Kevin" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]>, "Discussion of biomass cooking > stoves" <[email protected]> > Cc: biochar-policy <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Stoves] [biochar-policy] Re: Char vs. fertilizer > Message-ID: <B054A33CD77346639C49804637AB93EE@usera594fda0bf> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Dear Ron > ----- Original Message ----- > From: [email protected] > To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves > Cc: biochar-policy > Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2011 9:01 PM > Subject: [biochar-policy] Re: [Stoves] Char vs. fertilizer > > > > > Kevin (cc 2 lists): > > 1. Your response to my one sentence response to Anil's two questions > below has nothing to do with stoves. If you want to continue discussions on > whether excess atmospheric carbon can/will/should be a reason for accelerated > growth of Biochar, I urge you to join our sister list: "Biochar-policy" > (being cc'd). > > # I am not at all interested in further discussions on the effectiveness of > biochar as a means for sequestering carbon, in that it is a "slam/dunk, > "case-closed" matter. It is indeed a very effective way to sequester carbon. > Why discuss it further and beat a dead horse? However, I am indeed very > interested in discussing, from the viewpoint of the Farmer or Grower, whether > it is best for him to convert his agricultural waste to char, or to use it > uncharred (ie, "as is") as part of an organic fertilizer system. > > 2. The important part of Anil's two questions (which contained the > words that I answered (see below) in a personal "belief" (as opposed to your > denial) sense were the two now underlined (my choices for emphasis) and > CAPITALIZED conjunctions: > > By Anil: "What will be a better strategy for agricultural residues: to > produce char OR organic fertilizer? > > > Is there any quantitative studies done for both value production AND > reducing environmental considerations > > # "2 + 2 = 5"... Your answer is right, but you answered the wrong > questions!! :-) What about dealing with the other important words in the > issues he raised, like strategy, organic fertilizer, qualitative studies, > and value production? > > The answers that Anil seeks are on the four Biochar lists and the IBI > site (and dozens of other sites) almost every day. I gave the shortest > appropriate answer I could for the stoves list. > > # I do not know of any qualitative studies on any of the 5 lists you refer > to that deal with the best ways to put agricultural wastes to their highest > use, that is, if it is to the best interest of the Farmer/Grower to char his > waste, or to use it uncharred. Can you point to one? > > 3. By far the biggest "environmental consideration" we have in the world > today is anthropogenic global warming (AGW). If Anil meant anything else, I > would be greatly surprised. > > # "Environmental considerations" was one part of one question. His > fundamental thrust, as I saw it, was to see if there was any quantitative > studies pointing to the best way for using agricultural waste. > > When I have seen you (mostly a biochar detractor) defending your Biochar > PR advice on any of the biochar lists, then I will take your charge of my > irresponsibility seriously. > > # If you would kindly review all my postings on "Biochar", I think you will > find that I am a strong and enthusiastic supporter of the responsible use of > biochar, and also, that I am strongly against the irresponsible use of > biochar. If, in all my postings on Biochar you can find even one that is > against the responsible use of Biochar, then I will tender my sincere > apology. However, I will continue to oppose the wrongful promotion of biochar > as a "silver bullet, a "cure-all", or an "agricultural panacea." > > 4. I also look forward to your claiming on any biochar list that IBI > is "irresponsible" when saying, exactly as did I, that Biochar can > effectively remove excess CO2 - as one of two equal parts of IBI's Biochar > definition.. > > # Biochar is an effective method of sequestering carbon and advocating its > use in agriculture without knowing the circumstances where biochar additions > will actually be of benefit, preferably maximum benefit, to the Farmer and > Grower is irresponsible. Responsible agricultural extension work does not > consist of piggy-backing favourite climate issues on food production advice > where the consequence for the latter are unknown. Your argument is "2+2=5". > > 5. You referred to my "belief" several times - presumably to contrast > with "denier". I also "believe" in the law of gravity. I believe in > evolution. I can't think of another word to use in questions of science. > I'm ready to discuss the words "belief" and "denier" any time you wish when > talking about the sciences related to AGW and/or Biochar. > > # I used your "belief" word in the context of "a view presented with no > supporting > evidence or explanation." > > 6. I am not going to respond to any of your admonishments below except > to say I find no merit in any of them. I'd be glad to explain that "any" > statement on the "biochar-policy" list. "Stoves" is not an appropriate venue > for that dialogue. > > # Anil's question is of profound and utmost relevance and importance to the > Stove List!! If it turns out that the quantitative studies, about which he > inquired, showed that the best strategy for using agricultural waste was for > the Farmer/Grower to use it in the uncharred state, then a major > justification for the production of biochar would be unfounded. In such a > case, a significant fraction of the justification for stoves developed to > produce biochar would be questionable. Please note that "agricultural waste" > can have four fundamental uses: > 1: For direct application to the soil, or as part of an "organic fertilizer" > 2: For direct use as fuel, with or without pelletizing, briquetting or > other such processing. > 3: For conversion to charcoal, intended for use as fuel > 4: For conversion to charcoal, for use as biochar. > > 7. To stovers: I hope/think most of you will recognize that we will see > a lot more clean and income-generating stoves (charcoal-making stoves) when > the USA catches up with the rest of the world. By "catchup", I mean gaining > a realistic view of the problems associated with AGW ( the subject matter of > the three messages following). Charcoal-making stoves can play a huge and > early role in solving this AGW problem. > > # If the charcoal is not advantageously used as a benefit to agriculture, > is it still "biochar?" > > Carbon negativity is very different from carbon neutrality. I believe > Anil asked a good question and I would not change my answer. > # But your reply does not deal with the important fuel related issues he > raises! Perhaps I can restate them as follows: Is it better for the Farmer or > Grower to use the agricultural waste biomass (whole) as a fuel or to use it > as part of an organic fertilizer, either directly or after charring it, and, > has any generally accepted comparative benefit been studied quantitatively? > > Kevin > > Ron > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > From: "Kevin" <[email protected]> > To: "Discussion of biomass cooking stoves" <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 2011 11:42:09 AM > Subject: Re: [Stoves] Char vs. fertilizer > > > Dear Ron > > Anil raises a very important question that should not be dismissed with a > mere belief. I suggest that you are doing Biochar a great disservice by > persisting on "beating the Climate Change Drum", while disregarding the > circumstances where biochar additions to the soil will actually benefit the > Farmer and Grower. Biochar usage will escalate dramatically in circumstances > where biochar can be clearly and palpably demonstrated as being cost > effective to the Farmer and Grower. In my opinion, Biochar usage will > virtually collapse, if its use depends on the Carbon Credit Payment > incentives actually received by the Farmer or Grower. > > The general state of the World Economies, and the complexity of system > administration is such that it is extremely unlikely that Carbon Credit > Payments will actually reach the Farmer or Grower to a degree that such > payments will encourage the use of biochar. > > Furthermore, I feel it is irresponsible to promote increased usage of > Biochar in Agriculture, without knowing the circumstances where biochar > additions will actually be of benefit to the Farmer and Grower. Some of the > Farmers that people like Anil, Dr. Reddy, Dr. Karve, and Peter Ongele wish to > help are literally one crop away from starvation; a "disappointing yield" or > a crop failure can literally have lethal consequences. Sadly, all too many > "Biochar Promoters" infer that "Biochar = Terra Preta". Evidence I have from > personal tests, confirmed by others, shows that "Biochar Only", in a > disadvantaged soil will DECREASE plant growth. However, others have indeed > shown that under certain circumstances, biochar appears to be beneficial to > the Farmer or Grower, PROVIDING that other soil amendments needed by the soil > are added at the same time. Such "other soil amendments" or additives could > include: > * Organic matter > * Manure > * Fertilizer > * Compost > * Urine > * Microbes > * Sugar > * Silt and Clay > * Etc > > Biochar alone is NOT a panacea for the Farmer or Grower. While it can be > PART of a solution in some cases, it can only result in an improvement if it > brings something to the soil, that the soil lacks. For example, there is no > point in adding charcoal to a soil that is deficient in organic matter, in > that charcoal is NOT organic matter... it is "mineralized carbon" that > originated from biomass, and it cannot feed the soil life-forms necessary for > plant growth. > > In my opinion, Anil's question is extremely relevant, and it deserves to be > answered in a responsible manner... with evidence from competently structured > and implemented tests, rather than being dismissed with an unsupported > belief. Using a soil that is otherwise "good", with the single exception that > it is deficient in organic matter, the tests should be structured to > determine if the Farmer or Grower gets superior growth results under the > following test conditions: > A: A given amount of organic matter is added to the soil per square meter. > or > B: The SAME amount of organic matter per square meter is charred to produce > biochar, and the resulting biochar is added to the test plot. > > Note that this simple test will only prove the difference between organic > matter and biochar... it does not answer the question posed by Anil. Given > that an "Organic Fertilizer" is "Organic matter plus a "package of > additives"", the above simple test could be expanded in a manner where > identical "additive packages" were added to the test plots in the "A Plots" > (organic matter) and "B Plots" (biochar from the same amount of organic > matter). > > Kevin > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Ron Larson > To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves > Cc: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves > Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2011 7:21 AM > Subject: Re: [Stoves] Char vs. fertilizer > > > Anil (cc list) > > > > > I believe Biochar will do the better job of removing excess atmospheric > CO2 and of improving soil productivity over the long term. > > > Ron > > Sent from my iPad > > On Nov 2, 2011, at 2:38 AM, nari phaltan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Dear Stovers, > > > What will be a better strategy for agricultural residues: to produce > char or organic fertilizer? > > > Is there any quantitative studies done for both value production and > reducing environmental considerations? > > > Both char and organic fertilizer will go towards enriching the soil. > > > Cheers. > > > Anil > > > > -- > Nimbkar Agricultural Research Institute (NARI) > Tambmal, Phaltan-Lonand Road > P.O.Box 44 > Phaltan-415523, Maharashtra, India > Ph:91-2166-222396/220945 > e-mail:[email protected] > [email protected] > > http://www.nariphaltan.org > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20111103/63e72fd5/attachment.html> > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Stoves mailing list > > to Send a Message to the list, use the email address > [email protected] > > to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page > http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org > > > for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site: > http://www.bioenergylists.org/ > > > End of Stoves Digest, Vol 15, Issue 5 > *************************************
_______________________________________________ Stoves mailing list to Send a Message to the list, use the email address [email protected] to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site: http://www.bioenergylists.org/
