[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