[Stoves] MUST CHARCOAL BE A CAUSE FOR CONCERN?

[Jeff Davis]

Dear Dr. Karve,


A plant may indeed absorb minerals from the ground. For example, the
Dandelion has a tap root that grows below the top soil and is claimed to
absorb minerals/nutrients. I would think that at this level there is
less microbe activity. It is also claimed that, because of this, it
helps to enrich the surrounding plants and top soil. At least some trees
also have a tap root, possible the apple tree. But I still tend to
believe that the plants use both direct and indirect nutrient
absorption.

I also do not advocate compost because it doesn't persist in the top
soil and for that reason I favor humus. You mention acid, humus has
humic acid. It's also well know that sugar does indeed help to fuel the
top soil. I would also guess that sugar would help to save the organic
material whether it be compost or humus because the microbes would feed
on the sugar before the organic material. I could also speculate that if
the top soil was built up, so to speak, that the addition of sugar would
keep it going at it's present rate. I would also guess that some of the
crop residue would also end up back in the top soil. It's well know by
marijuana growers that adding molasses to the soil is a big help. People
have even used Coke drink but because molasses has the trace mineral
from the plant it works better. Also, like humic acid, molasses is a
chelating agent so nutrients can be absorbed directly. I think Schultz
Garden Safe Liquid Plant Food is molasses with a big price tag.

It is also my belief and personal observation that plants still need top
soil. If I remove the top soil, which has happen, plants do very poorly
if they grow at all. And if I added sugar to the clay hard pan left it
would be washed away with the next rain fall. The humus in the top soil
has too many functions to list here, from absorbing water, sugar and air
etc. etc..

I have also grown plants in pure humus/compost and they only performed
average. By far my best results were where the two are mixed together as
found in nature. No chemical fertilizers or pesticides, great yield,
less weeds and easy tilling. Almost hands off growing. But then one
could become quite lazy and find hobbies to pass the time.

Yes, food waste is good digester feedstock where cow manure can have a
low gas production but of course other animal manures can have higher
yields than cow manure.

So much to write about that it's frustrating but here we write emails
not books.


Best regards,


Jeff


On Sat, 2010-10-16 at 21:14 +0800, Anand Karve wrote:
> 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
>