[Stoves] Biochar as an Agricultural Tool Was: Re: [biochar]allAfrica.com: Africa: Biochar -Unfulfilled Promises in Cameroon
Alex English
english at kingston.net
Tue Jan 3 06:12:16 CST 2012
Hi Ron
Hel-Low Kevin
You both play your tunes with remarkable commitment. Both common to the
histories of technological change and adoption.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_lifecycle
The road ahead is foggy. Its foggy behind too.
Proceed.
Alex
> Dear Ron
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* rongretlarson at comcast.net <mailto:rongretlarson at comcast.net>
> *To:* Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> <mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org> ; kchisholm at seaside.ns.ca
> <mailto:kchisholm at seaside.ns.ca> ; karnask at hotmail.com
> <mailto:karnask at hotmail.com>
> *Cc:* biochar-production at yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:biochar-production at yahoogroups.com> ;
> biochar-policy at yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:biochar-policy at yahoogroups.com> ; biochar at yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:biochar at yahoogroups.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, January 02, 2012 4:57 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Stoves] Biochar as an Agricultural Tool Was: Re:
> [biochar]allAfrica.com: Africa: Biochar -Unfulfilled Promises in
> Cameroon
>
> Four Lists, cc Kevin , jim karnofski <mailto:karnask at hotmail.com>
>
> 1. This is in large part to give thanks to Jim Karnofski, for
> his responses. I find little to disagree with in Kevin's remarks
> (for maybe the first time) - on the need for more information.
> But I don't think he is asking for the right information.
> ## The information I was attempting to elicit was information that
> would excite any rational Farmer, with the prospects of increasing
> his annual income. Perhaps you could rephrase my questions, and
> ask them in a better manner?
> And I think he is misinterpreting whatever he has been reading -
> as he seems to feel the Biochar community (only partly represented
> by these lists) are ready to endorse any form of char on any soil
> for any crop.
> ## Not at all!! The IBI clearly distinguishes between various feed
> sources for pyrolysis, and restricts their recommendations for
> chars that can be called "biochar." That is a good thing. It
> brings some knowledge and consistency into "biochar."
> I challenge Kevin to cite any example of the overselling he
> accuses biochar proponents of. I doubt there is any farmer
> anywhere on earth who is stupid enough to place a lot of unknown
> material on very much of his/her soil without the proof easily
> available from a few square meter test (following an even-easier
> few pot trial, and still easier germination tests).
> ## OK... I offer the paragraph you just wrote as evidence of
> overselling biochar!! :-) Firstly, pot trials are known to give
> results that can differ from results of larger scale field
> applications. Secondly, there is no way that a Farmer can easily
> get truly meaningful results from such tests unless he knows a
> great deal about biochar, his particular soil deficiencies, what
> other additives he should be adding, and in what quantities. What
> I am asking for is some guidelines for what the Farmer needs to
> know, to structure meaningful tests, when such test work could
> have a reasonable potential for improving his annual economic
> situation.
>
> 2. Kevin quotes one sentence out of the report Jim Karnofski
> has recommended, which reads
>
> / "Current knowledge about the effects of adding biochar to
> Australian agricultural soils is not/
> /sufficient to support recommending its use."
>
> /I hope that Kevin's intent was not meant the (cherry-picking) way
> it could be taken - that current knowledge recommends against its use
> ## Speaking of "cherry picking", the quote in context is as follows:
> " # This 63 page report seems to be balanced and sensible. I would
> draw attention to a quote from the summary:
>
> *"Current knowledge about the effects of adding biochar to
> Australian agricultural soils is not sufficient to support
> recommending its use."*
>
> # This would seem to support my inquiry for more guidelines on
> where to consider using biochar, and where to avoid using it. All
> I am asking is for more knowledge and guidelines to support
> recommending its use."
>
> ## The first line of my quote acknowledges this as a good report.
> It basically invites an interested reader to actually read teh
> full report. Who is going to pass up a "balanced report?" The
> second sentence draws attention to the need for caution, and the
> final two snetences simply call for further information. I would
> suggest that this is rather balanced, and is not at all a "biochar
> slam."
>
>
>
> Indeed the very next sentence shows that was not the intent of the
> report authors:
>
> "However, international and Australian research will aid
> decisions about its use when results become available."
>
> ## OK!! This snetence seems to support exactly what I was asking
> for!! What's the problem?
> Nobody I know in the Biochar world thinks we have the all the
> needed answers today.
> ## Very true. Any Farmer asking anyone in teh biochar world a
> specific question about biochar economics is very likely to get a
> vague and nos-specific reply.
> And again I ask Kevin (or anyone) for examples of over-selling by
> any Biochar proponent.
> ## See above.
> A good place to send me is to www.biochar-international.org -
> which is listing 15 -18 new technical peer-reviewed articles every
> month. Who among these authors (or any cite at the IBI site) are
> overly positive?
> ## OK: See:
> http://www.biochar-international.org/sites/default/files/Technical%20Bulletin%20Biochar%20Tree%20Planting.pdf
> This, in my opinion, is a responsibly written report, in that it
> stresses the need for testing. However, I think it can be improved
> upon, in that it has a potential to do biochar a disservice for
> the following reasons:
> 1: It says nothing about geographical limitations. Benefits may
> be greater in tropical and sub-tropical climates than in temperate
> or northern climates.
> 2: It says nothing about what advantages biochar can bring to a soil.
> 3: It says nothing about the desirability of a soil analysis, to
> determine if biochar can actually help a problem or deficiency the
> soil has.
> 4: This report suggests an application rate in the range of about
> 1% or less have been used in field crops: As I recall, the
> Japanese have used about 1% on tree crops, while field crops seem
> to do better with 5% to 10%. Big difference.
> 5: Only biochar is shown in the photos, and there is no mention of
> the need for other additives, such as vegetative matter, compost,
> manure, fertilizer, lime, etc.
> 6: It says nothing about the "time factor", in that results in
> second and subsequent years are likely to be better than in teh
> first year
> ## I do know from my own field tests that biochar alone retarded
> growth in my tests, giving worse results than the untreated
> control plot. My results were much better in plots with added
> seaweed, but still the results with seaweed plus biochar were not
> as good as with seaweed alone. The failure to mention these (what
> I consider to be) other important and relevant factors could lead
> a Farmer or Grower to the wrong conclusions. Thats why I feel this
> specific IBI report oversells biochar and could be improved upon.
>
> 3. But the real issue to me remains the fact that many (most?)
> biochar proponents believe that the sequestration benefits of
> Biochar justify (for moral and ethical reasons) transfer payments
> from developed to developing countries.
> ## Lets first see if biochar can "stand on its own two feet" and
> be a direct benefit to the Farmer, before worrying about moral and
> ethical considerations.
> Climate deniers reject this out of hand, it seems - as they have
> concluded for reasons I cannot comprehend that anthropogenic
> global warming (AGW) is a hoax.
> ## Whether AGW is a hoax or not is another issue. The immediate
> issue of direct concern is whether or not the use of biochar is
> economically advantageous to the Farmer.
> This report, as does Kevin thankfully), acknowledges that there
> is plenty of evidence that Biochar can help in carbon negativity.
> ## Certainly, it can. However, that is another issue, separate
> from whether or not biochar is a good investment for the Farmer.
> So I think the main Biochar issue today is whether there is any
> cheaper, more socially beneficial, less costly means of removing
> excess atmospheric carbon. I think the experiments to date are
> mostly limited because of the active work of climate deniers to
> prevent funding. I hope someone can convince me there is another
> reason (with published citations I can research).
> ## Another way to look at it is that there is only so much
> Research money to go around. Perhaps if less was spent on Climate
> Research, more would be available to advance the use of biochar as
> a money maker for the Farmer.
>
>
> 4. To counterbalance Kevin's single-sentence quote,I think it
> would help in this dialog to give the complete "Conclusions"
> section from the recent Australian report. I have emphasized the
> positives found in these three paragraphs - that (to me) justify
> the conclusion that Biochar is likely to have a very important
> role is world agriculture - and needs lots of experimentation from
> the experts and amateurs alike.
>
> 13 Conclusions
>
> "Application of biochar to agricultural land for soil
> amelioration and agricultural productivity
> improvements is not a new phenomenon. Terra preta soils in the
> Amazonian Basin are
> characterised by highly fertile dark soils created from burning
> crop stubble and other
> household wastes over thousands of years. More recently, biochar
> production from agricultural
> waste products has been assessed in an attempt to replicate these
> fertile soils."
> *(RWL: I think that the experience in the Amazon over millennia
> are the primary reason that most Biochar proponents use for
> justifying our enthusiasm for Biochar. Productivity improvement
> factors today of 2 and 3 and land value increases of 5 and 6
> after 500 and more years ought to count for something.* * Why
> believe BFW or other detractors who say modern science can't
> duplicate that?*
> **
> ## *You are overselling biochar again. Biochar is NOT Terra Preta,
> and it is misleading to suggest that it is.*
>
>
> "A number of benefits have been identified within the literature;
> biochar has been foundto
> improve agriculturally significant soil parameters such as soil
> pH, cation exchange capacity
> and soil water holding capacity. Researchers have found the
> increase in these performance
> parameters has improved nitrogen use efficiencyand therefore crop
> productivityin limited
> field trials. Further, biochar has the potential to reduce
> greenhouse gas emissions through
> carbon sequestration, as well as potentially decreasing methane
> and nitrous oxide emissions
> from the soil.
> (RWL: I have re-read Kevin's responses below - and don't find
> ANYof these benefits mentioned. Half that number of benefits
> would get most people excited.)
> *## These are good aspects of biochar, indeed. However, the claims
> are conceptual, and not quantified.
> *
> "Although much research to date has been promising, knowledge
> gaps remain. Through
> current government investment in large biochar projects, such as
> the Climate Change Research
> Program, researchers have amassed an impressive amountof data and
> information, which
> will form the ideal baseto further research. With this
> information, the net benefits in both
> plant productivity improvements and greenhouse gas reductions from
> using biochar may be
> assessed before widescale application. However, further research
> is needed to identify optimal
> application rates, biochar quality parameters and effects of
> biochar on chemical efficacy. Once
> further research is undertaken and the knowledge gaps closed,
> biochar may play a role in
> improving productivity and environmental sustainability issues in
> Australian agriculture.
> RWL: at the recent Kyoto Biochar meeting ,Tom Miles and I and a
> few others on this list heard Dr. Evelyn Krull of CSIRO give an
> outstanding talk on what they are learning in Australia. She
> predicted generalizable results in a few more years. The data is
> coming - and as Jim Karnofski is emphasizing below, we should not
> be surprised that it hasn't happened immediately. This is by far
> the most complicated technical topic I have ever worked on. But
> the need for it, our good fortune that it was used for thousands
> of years in the Amazon, and the great progress made by the soil
> science community is enough for me to retain my enthusiasm for
> Biochar - until proven misplaced.
> ## With all the vagueness and nebulosity associated with the above
> statement, it is understandable why a Farmer should be cautious
> about spending his limited resources on biochar. Reasonable
> guidelines would give him a rational basis for deciding if biochar
> might be economically advantageous enough for him, to do testing.
>
>
> 5. There are about 100 references at the end of this report.
> Those who are derogatory toward Biochar (BFW and a few allies)
> have never published one (I think) in a peer-reviewed journal. I
> ask again for something/anything I can read to justify other than
> enthusiasm for rapidly expanding the little that we are doing in
> Biochar.
>
>
> 6. Kevin's last sentence below summarizes his view I think - so
> I will only concentrate on it:
> "These reports are no way to sell a Farmer on using biochar!! :-)
> Would you know of ANY URL's that would give a Farmer a rational
> and economic basis for justifying a biochar test? Otherwise, the
> Farmers are sure to be naysayers."
> (RWL: I maintain that Kevin is putting the onus on scientists who
> are (fortunately) too smart to give what he asks.
> ## Scientists... Agricultural Extension Officers... biochar
> producers... NGO's... it doesn't matter who gives the Farmer sound
> advice, just so long as it is sound, and specific enough that teh
> Farmer can see that there may be a place in his operation, to
> warrant a sensible biochar test.
> This new Australian report, like virtually every one before it,
> gives plenty of reasons for any farmer who can get his/her hands
> on a lttile char (which is in short supply) to try a few
> experiments pertinent to his/her situation.
> ## Don't forget the important sentence in their summary of their
> Report:
>
> *"Current knowledge about the effects of adding biochar to
> Australian agricultural soils is not sufficient to support
> recommending its use."*
>
> The scientific literature is almost sure to not be pertinent (at
> this stage) to his/her specific char/soil/crop combination.
> ## In the absence of specific recommendations, the only thing we
> can rely on is scientific literature. If it cannot be relied on as
> being pertinent, biochar is in big trouble.
> Smart farmers and soil scientists all over the world are already
> doing these tests - and reporting generally positive results.
> ## I have yet to see a report by a smart Farmer confirming that he
> has applied biochar to a second and third field.
> Getting and reporting a negative result can be a big help as well
> - as clearly too many don't know at all what to do, or couldn't
> get the right char, etc.
> # I was criticized for reporting negative results from a
> competently run biochar test. :-)
> That is the nature of this type of very difficult research - vary
> the parameters and follow the leads the following year on what
> does best the first year.
> ## If there are that many unknowns and teh research is very
> difficult, wouldn't you agree that biochar is being
> "over-promoted", or at teh very least, that it is being
> "prematurely promoted?"
> Only climate deniers, who are unable to see the true economics
> at play here, seem not to understand the need at this stage of
> knowledge for experiments - not prescriptions.
>
> # I am sure that some Farmers are Climate Change Believers, and
> that some are Climate Change Disbelievers. Whatever. The important
> thing is "Is it economically sensible for the Farmer to test and
> use biochar?"
>
> Again I ask for citations so I can understand any opposite view.
> ## It seems that you are allowing the tail (Climate Change
> concerns) to wag the dog (the use of biochar as a soil amendment
> to improve agriculture). Nobody seems to be able to take a
> responsible stand on where the use of biochar is likely to give an
> economic benefit to the Farmer.
> Best wishes,
> Kevin
>
> Ron
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From: *"Kevin" <kchisholm at seaside.ns.ca>
> *To: *biochar at yahoogroups.com, stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> *Cc: *biochar-production at yahoogroups.com,
> biochar-policy at yahoogroups.com
> *Sent: *Sunday, January 1, 2012 11:56:58 AM
> *Subject: *Re: [Stoves] Biochar as an Agricultural Tool Was: Re:
> [biochar] allAfrica.com: Africa: Biochar -Unfulfilled
> Promises in Cameroon
>
> Dear Jim
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* jim karnofski <mailto:karnask at hotmail.com>
> *To:* Richard Hard <mailto:biochar at yahoogroups.com> ;
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> <mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> *Cc:* biochar-policy at yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:biochar-policy at yahoogroups.com> ;
> biochar-production at yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:biochar-production at yahoogroups.com>
> *Sent:* Saturday, December 31, 2011 3:59 PM
> *Subject:* RE: Biochar as an Agricultural Tool Was: Re:
> [Stoves] [biochar] allAfrica.com: Africa: Biochar -Unfulfilled
> Promises in Cameroon
>
> Dear All,
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: karnask at hotmail.com <mailto:karnask at hotmail.com>
> To: biochar at yahoogroups.com <mailto:biochar at yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: RE: Biochar as an Agricultural Tool Was: Re: [Stoves]
> [biochar] allAfrica.com: Africa: Biochar -Unfulfilled Promises
> in Cameroon
> Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2011 19:54:53 +0000
>
> I see Kevin as a thoughtful and skeptical, but not well-read
> # I have been reading about Terra Preta and Biochar for the
> past 6 to 8 years. Perhaps I have not been reading the right
> material?
> and Kevin seems to see agriculture as a science with certainty
> as if it always has black and white answers.
> # No. We do not need such "black or white" answers... some
> good general and rational guidelines would suffice.
> The more you know about soils, the more respect for
> uncertainty you have as the chemical nature of soil is infinite.
> # Agreed. However, we must be able to quantify the areas where
> biochar could most likely be of benefit, and the areas
> where it would least likely to be of benefit. At least, we
> would then be able to do test work that had a higher
> likelihood of success.
>
> As far as farm economics, time and testing will tell, but I am
> certain the answer will be more pragmatic than some farmers
> can stand. For instance, a recommendation might be, add
> biochar as you can afford, building up to 1% in your lifetime
> and leave the next increment to the next farmer over the next
> generation. The efficiency and effectiveness of the soil is
> improved with the added carbon. And Carbon, by definition, is
> organic. Carbon compounds need not be edible to be considered
> organic.
> # I would respectfully suggest that while biomass matter is
> organic, biochar is organic matter that has been mineralized.
> It does nor function in soil the same way that true organic
> matter does.
>
> I encourage Kevin to carefully read the scientific table-top
> research studies from Australia,
> http://adl.brs.gov.au/data/warehouse/biochar9abcm001/biochar9abcm00101/TR.2011.06_Biochar_v1.0.0.pdf
> <http://adl.brs.gov.au/data/wareho%20use/biochar9abcm001/biochar9abcm00101/TR.2011.06_Biochar_v1.0.0.pdf>
> .
> # This 63 page report seems to be balanced and sensible. I
> would draw attention to a quote from the summary:
>
> *"Current knowledge about the effects of adding biochar to
> Australian agricultural soils is not sufficient to support
> recommending its use."*
>
> # This would seem to support my inquiry for more guidelines on
> where to consider using biochar, and where to avoid using it.
> All I am asking is for more knowledge and guidelines to
> support recommending its use.
>
>
> and the US,
> http://www.biochar-us.org/pdf%20files/biochar_report_lowres.pdf,
> for a reasonable up-to-date summary of the best known
> scientific evidence of why it was used by the ancients for
> MILLENNIA.
>
> # Pages 3 to 5 of this 84 page report give good insight into
> where biochar could be a benefit to Agriculture. The bulk of
> this report extols biochar's energy and climate change
> advantages. However, there is nothing specific that would
> enable a Farmer to make a rational decision on whether or not
> to bother with a biochar test.
>
> I am pragmatic enough to hedge on my own to incrementally add
> biochar as I can.
> # What were the reasons that led you to use biochar? Which of
> biochar's features do you feel are of benefit to you? Do you
> feel that you are getting a good financial return on your
> investment in biochar additions? If so, what would you
> estimate the simple Return on Investment to be?
>
> As far as having a clear answer with diagnosis and
> intervention with organic soils, intervention is going to be
> harder to achieve as the infinite nature of an organic soil
> does not lend itself to the very simple Chemistry 101 of the
> past Leibig-like "soil science". The present and future
> complex soil science will consider the soil as an in finite
> mixture of compounds and generally unknown bacteria, fungi,
> plasmids, prions, and elemental compounds, with unmeasurable
> symbiotic interactions, requiring meta-genetics, to get a
> glimpse as to what might be happening in any given micro
> environment. Good luck with funding basic organic soil science
> as the money is not there. It is the Agro-chemical-industrial
> complex that sets the priorities with funding and that is not
> compatable with organic enhancing measures like biochar. It
> may have to be up to us as Citizen Scientists to get the job
> done during this stage of our societies growth and development.
> # OK.... given the complex nature of organic soils, and the
> probable difficulty of evaluating results in a meaningful and
> transferable manner, would it be best to avoid biochar
> application on organic soils, and focus biochar testing on
> soils with a lower organic content? Concerning your suggestion
> that "Big Ag" is choking off funding for biochar research,
> perhaps effort should be focused on finding ways to make
> "Organic Fertilisers" incorporating biochar, as suggested by
> Anil Rajvanshi?
>
> We should all get used to painting with a broad brush, still
> using the Chem 101, but using a broad brush to address
> problems. The ancients threw everything back into the soil,
> feeding it like the soil is an omnivore, cultivating like it
> needed to respirate and respecting it like their life depended
> upon it.
> # There is a huge message here. Terra Preta is said to have
> worked wonderfully, and to have been extremely fertile. You
> seem to have described "Organic Gardening with a Charcoal
> Addition." :-)
>
> The soil has been treated lik e dirt for too long, just a
> petri-dish medium with N-P-K needs, etc. One needs to treat it
> like the living ecosystem that it is. Biochar has been proven
> to be effective and not harmful in any soil for advancing the
> quantity and the diversity of life. So, in my organic soil it
> is part of my compost regimen because it works well for me as
> it seemed to have work well for others for thousands of years.
> # I would suggest that the attitude "...treating soil like
> dirt..." outlook took hold with the advent of industrially
> produced fertilizers, and the reduced attention to the
> importance of soil organic matter.
>
> We need the naysayers, but they need to read and practice, too.
> # Well, if a Farmer that was interested in the potential use
> of biochar on his farm read the above two Reports, he would
> probably be left with the messages:
> 1: Australian Report: There are many unknowns, and biochar is
> unlikely to be economically advantageous.
> 2: American Report: Since only 3 out of 84 pages in this
> report suggest a potential for agricultural benefit from using
> biochar, it is probably not not worth considering it further
> at this time.
> # These reports are no way to sell a Farmer on using biochar!!
> :-) Would you know of ANY URL's that would give a Farmer a
> rational and economic basis for justifying a biochar test?
> Otherwise, the Farmers are sure to be naysayers.
> Thanks!
> Kevin
>
> Jim
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> To: stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> CC: biochar-policy at yahoogroups.com;
> biochar-production at yahoogroups.com; biochar at yahoogroups.com
> From: kchisholm at ca.inter.net
> Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2011 12:52:15 -0400
> Subject: Biochar as an Agricultural Tool Was: Re: [Stoves]
> [biochar] allAfrica.com: Africa: Biochar -Unfulfilled Promises
> in Cameroon
>
> Dear All
> Biochar is not a panacea, contrary to what its enthusiastic
> supporters infer. It works, and is beneficial in some
> circumstances, and it fails to be beneficial in others.
>
> <snip, as not covering the following>
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
> Version: 2012.0.1901 / Virus Database: 2109/4718 - Release Date:
> 01/02/12
>
> __._,_.___
> Reply to sender
> <mailto:kchisholm at seaside.ns.ca?subject=Re%3A%20%5BStoves%5D%20Biochar%20as%20an%20Agricultural%20Tool%20Was%3A%20Re%3A%20%5Bbiochar%5DallAfrica%2Ecom%3A%20Africa%3A%20Biochar%20-Unfulfilled%20Promises%20in%20Cameroon>
> | Reply to group
> <mailto:biochar at yahoogroups.com?subject=Re%3A%20%5BStoves%5D%20Biochar%20as%20an%20Agricultural%20Tool%20Was%3A%20Re%3A%20%5Bbiochar%5DallAfrica%2Ecom%3A%20Africa%3A%20Biochar%20-Unfulfilled%20Promises%20in%20Cameroon>
> | Reply via web post
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJyb2h2czNmBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIyNDM4MDUyBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNzQxODYxMgRtc2dJZAMxMzIwNgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNycGx5BHN0aW1lAzEzMjU1NjY5OTk-?act=reply&messageNum=13206>
> | Start a New Topic
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJmbGphMGlvBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIyNDM4MDUyBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNzQxODYxMgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNudHBjBHN0aW1lAzEzMjU1NjY5OTk->
>
> Messages in this topic
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/message/13206;_ylc=X3oDMTM3cW1tYzJ0BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIyNDM4MDUyBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNzQxODYxMgRtc2dJZAMxMzIwNgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawN2dHBjBHN0aW1lAzEzMjU1NjY5OTkEdHBjSWQDMTMyMDY->
> (1)
> Recent Activity:
>
> * New Members
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJnaDNqMGh2BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIyNDM4MDUyBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNzQxODYxMgRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2bWJycwRzdGltZQMxMzI1NTY2OTk5?o=6>
> 1
>
> Visit Your Group
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar;_ylc=X3oDMTJmazl0cGRuBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIyNDM4MDUyBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNzQxODYxMgRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzEzMjU1NjY5OTk->
>
> MARKETPLACE
>
> Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on
> - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now.
> <http://global.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=15otessmj/M=493064.14543979.14562481.13298430/D=groups/S=1707418612:MKP1/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1325574200/L=41302d4e-35c8-11e1-8c65-3ffce6d07c57/B=IB6rLdBDRrc-/J=1325567000143509/K=bXkG7wGwkjlyz25RQpfN9A/A=6060255/R=0/SIG=1194m4keh/*http://us.toolbar.yahoo.com/?.cpdl=grpj>
>
> Yahoo! Groups
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJlYWkyZ2IxBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzIyNDM4MDUyBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNzQxODYxMgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTMyNTU2Njk5OQ-->
>
> Switch to: Text-Only
> <mailto:biochar-traditional at yahoogroups.com?subject=Change%20Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional>,
> Daily Digest
> <mailto:biochar-digest at yahoogroups.com?subject=Email%20Delivery:%20Digest>
> • Unsubscribe
> <mailto:biochar-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe> •
> Terms of Use <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>
> .
>
> __,_._,___
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20120103/cfe096fe/attachment.html>
More information about the Stoves
mailing list