[Stoves] MUST CHARCOAL BE A CAUSE FOR CONCERN?

[Anand Karve]

Dear Jeff,
It is rather a lengthy discourse, but please read it. The thoughts given
below are my own, formed by applying logic to some known facts but not
substantiated by field experiments.
The textbooks say that plants cannot absorb the minerals in the soil,
because they are insoluble in water, and therefore one has to apply water
soluble chemicals in the form of fertilizers or organic composts to a field.
The textbooks also explain that one needs a high population of microbes in
the soil for decomposing  the organic matter because it is the microbes
that make the minerals in the organic matter available to the plants. Both
the assumptions in the text books are wrong. Let me first of all point out
that water is a universal solvent, and that it dissolves all minerals in the
soil. Silica is present in the soil in the form of quartz, opal and various
silicate minerals. They are considered by the lay public to be insoluble in
water, but the capillary water in the soil contains from 5 to 15 p.p.m.
(parts per million or mg per litre of water) silica. That plants can take up
silica from the soil is dmonstrated by the fact that a single crop of wheat
or rice removes from the soil about 250 kg silica per ha. This is possible,
because the silica as well as other minerals dissolved in the capillary
water in the soil, are in a dynamic equilibrium with the water. That means,
that molecules removed by plants from the soil solution, are replaced by new
ones contributed by the undissolved pool of minerals in the soil. Therefore,
in spite of the plants taking up the minerals from the
soil, the concentration of the minerals in the soil-water remains constant.
Once we accept the fact, that plants can take up minerals directly from the
soil, it can be shown that about 1 m thick layer of soil has enough minerals
in it to support agriculture without fertilizers for the next 25,000 years.
In semi-arid regions, farmers who depend solely on rainfall as the source of
water, never apply any fertilizers to their crops, because, if the rains
were to fail, they would lose all the money spent on fertilizers. In spite
of farming in this manner for thousands of years, they continue to get more
or less the same yield from their farms, year after year.
The next point that I wish to make is that micro-organisms are more
efficient than plants in absorbing the minerals from the soil, because they
absorb through their entire surface, whereas plants have only the root hairs
as the absorbing organs. If one provides the soil with pure sugar or an
organic acid, the microbes multiply their numbers, which is an indirect
proof that they can aborb minerals directly from the soil. When the source
of organic carbon is all eaten up, they die, releasing the minerals, now in
the forms of proteins, co-enzymes, etc. into the soil. These are then
absorbed by the plants.
The agricultural strategy based on this logic is to apply to the field a
relatively small quantity of high calorie substance instead of composted
material, from which the nutition has already been taken away. This high
calorie material causes the microbes in the soil to increase their numbers,
and as stated above, they make the minerals in the soil available to the
plants.
In fact, we are using the same strategy in our biogas technology. We use
food waste, having a high nutitional value as feedstock, instead of fecal
matter of animals, which has low nutritional value for the methanogens.
Yours
A.D.Karve
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Jeff Davis <jeff0124 at velocity.net> wrote:

> Dear All,
> One statement that is constantly written on this list is, "use the small
> limbs from the trees and do not cut the whole tree." This is a false
> economy. A tree is a conductor of current, nutrients flow from the soil
> up the stem to the top of the tree then the leaves and limbs fall back
> down to the ground to be recycled. In this case the tree is not
> conducting electricity but nutrients. People need to be able to see this
> fundamental process. If you have the capacity to understand this you
> will see the reason for selectively harvesting the tree trunks and
> leaving the tops and small diameter wood. The nutrients in the tree are
> in the branches, bark and leaves, the stem having the least amount. It's
> also good to leave the bark in the woodlot. Otherwise, in time, you will
> kill off your woodlot. It is not the tree that cleans the air it is the
> whole system that cleans the air and if you steal the small diameter
> wood your essentially shorting out this system.
>
> It doesn't matter whether your fuel is wood, grass, weed or crop residue
> there still is a common denominator. If you care for the soil the soil
> will take care of your biomass.
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
> Jeff
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
>
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> Stoves mailing list
>
> 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 at lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
>



-- 
***
Dr. A.D. Karve
President, Appropriate Rural Technology Institute (ARTI)

*Please change my email address in your records to: adkarve at gmail.com *
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20101016/d40dabeb/attachment.html>