[Stoves] Biochar as an Agricultural Tool Was: Re: [biochar]allAfrica.com: Africa: Biochar -Unfulfilled Promises in Cameroon

Tue Jan 3 09:22:32 CST 2012

Please continue this topic on the biochar-policy at yahoogroups.com list. We have fulfilled Andrew Parker’s original intent of informing stoves participants about current issues with biochar. The stoves discussion needs to move back to stoves.

The biochar-policy at yahoogroups.com was created to deal with most of the issues that have been aired in this thread.  

The biochar at yahoogroups.com is for the general discussion of how biochar can best be used including specific experiences with different chars, crops and soils. 

Please limit cross-posting. Biochar-production was created for the specific discussion for methods of making biochar. 

We are entering out sixth year of discussion on these biochar lists. I created the lists in 2006 at the request of Ron Larson and Erich Knight to support what at that time was the “Agrichar Intiative” and later became the International Biochar Initiative. I sponsor the technical maintenance of the lists and the supporting website which can be found at:

www.biochar.bioenergylists.org

A guide and links to the individual lists can be found at www.info.bioenergylists.org

Thanks for your cooperation.

Tom Miles

T R Miles, Technical Consultants, Inc. 

Portland, Oregon, USA

tmiles at trmiles.com

From: stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Alex English
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 4:12 AM
To: biochar at yahoogroups.com
Cc: karnask at hotmail.com; Kevin; biochar-policy at yahoogroups.com; biochar-production at yahoogroups.com; Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Biochar as an Agricultural Tool Was: Re: [biochar]allAfrica.com: Africa: Biochar -Unfulfilled Promises in Cameroon

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 

To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves <mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>  ; kchisholm at seaside.ns.ca ; karnask at hotmail.com 

Cc: biochar-production at yahoogroups.com ; biochar-policy at yahoogroups.com ; 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 found to
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 efficiency and therefore crop productivity in 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 ANY of 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 amount of data and information, which
will form the ideal base to 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"  <mailto:kchisholm at seaside.ns.ca> <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 

Cc: biochar-policy at yahoogroups.com ; 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
To: 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
Version: 2012.0.1901 / Virus Database: 2109/4718 - Release Date: 01/02/12

__._,_.___

Reply to  <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> sender | Reply to  <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> group | Reply  <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJyb2h2czNmBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIyNDM4MDUyBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNzQxODYxMgRtc2dJZAMxMzIwNgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNycGx5BHN0aW1lAzEzMjU1NjY5OTk-?act=reply&messageNum=13206> via web post |  <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJmbGphMGlvBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIyNDM4MDUyBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNzQxODYxMgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNudHBjBHN0aW1lAzEzMjU1NjY5OTk-> Start a New Topic 

Messages in this topic <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/message/13206;_ylc=X3oDMTM3cW1tYzJ0BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIyNDM4MDUyBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNzQxODYxMgRtc2dJZAMxMzIwNgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawN2dHBjBHN0aW1lAzEzMjU1NjY5OTkEdHBjSWQDMTMyMDY->  (1) 

Recent Activity: 

·         <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJnaDNqMGh2BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIyNDM4MDUyBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNzQxODYxMgRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2bWJycwRzdGltZQMxMzI1NTY2OTk5?o=6> New Members 1 

 <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar;_ylc=X3oDMTJmazl0cGRuBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIyNDM4MDUyBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNzQxODYxMgRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzEzMjU1NjY5OTk-> Visit Your Group 

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> 

 <http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJlYWkyZ2IxBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzIyNDM4MDUyBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNzQxODYxMgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTMyNTU2Njk5OQ--> Yahoo! Groups

Switch to:  <mailto:biochar-traditional at yahoogroups.com?subject=Change%20Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only,  <mailto:biochar-digest at yahoogroups.com?subject=Email%20Delivery:%20Digest> Daily Digest •  <mailto:biochar-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe> Unsubscribe •  <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Use

.

  <http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=22438052/grpspId=1707418612/msgId=13206/stime=1325566999/nc1=4836042/nc2=4507179/nc3=4025373> 

__,_._,___

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20120103/2d1cec62/attachment.html>