[Stoves] [biochar] First report from Phnom Penh
Paul Olivier
paul.olivier at esrla.com
Sat Mar 23 18:07:41 CDT 2013
Kevin,
When you claim that Preston in the mustard green study had a starting pH of
4.5, when in fact it was 5.8 pH, then discussing these issues with you is a
complete waste of time. If you are going to read a scientific paper, then
read the numbers that are there, and do not invent numbers that support
your claim. How can we have a discussion if you engage in phantasy? To
claim that the only benefit of biochar is its high pH, conveniently
overlooks all of the other positive attributes that biochar brings to the
soil. I strongly recommend that you read *Biochar for Environmental
Management*, edited by Lehmann and Joseph.
Thanks.
Paul
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 12:07 AM, Kevin <kchisholm at ca.inter.net> wrote:
> **
> Dear Paul
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Paul Olivier <paul.olivier at esrla.com>
> *To:* Discussion of biomass cooking stoves<stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>; Ron
> Larson <rongretlarson at comcast.net>
> *Sent:* Friday, March 22, 2013 4:44 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Stoves] [biochar] First report from Phnom Penh
>
> Anand,
>
> I cannot follow what Kevin is saying here at all.
>
> *# What I am saying is that soil pH ( or bio-reactor pH) is very
> important, and that it is possible that most of the results from the
> astounding 350- 400% improvement may have been a result of simple pH
> adjustment, and not as a consequence of "pure biochar" additions. This is a
> special situation where an acidic soil was treated with high ash alkaline
> biochar, giving excellent results. The results are almost certainly
> not transferrable to a more common situation where a "reasonably good soil"
> has a biochar addition, where the biochar is made from a "low ash biochar",
> such as would be attained from bark free sawn lumber off-cuts from a
> sawmill. In "the more common situation", I am suggesting that it is very
> unlikely that anything near a 400% yield improvement would be seen. If Dr
> Preston had leached the Rice Hull biochar with hot water, and then run
> tests as follows, he could have easily sorted out the degree to which ash
> (with a pH adjustment effect) or the biochar were responsible for the
> reported remarkable improvement:*
> *a: Control *
> *b Control + "biochar leach water"*
> *c: Control + "leached biochar"*
> *d: Control + "Unleached biochar"*
> *As reported, Dr. Preston ran Tests a: and d: and was unable to sort out
> the relative benefits of pH adjustment from the benefits of biochar itself.
>
> *
> Let us take a look at the biochar study with respect to mustard green and
> other vegetables:
> http://www.lrrd.org/public-lrrd/proofs/lrrd2501/chha25008.htm
>
> *# We see from the Abstract of the report"*
> " The experimental design in a field plot trial (soil pH 5.8; OM 17%)
> conducted in the rainy season (September to October 2012) involved 24
> treatments arranged in a 6*4 factorial arrangement with 3 replications. The
> first factor was level of biochar (0, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 kg/m2); the second
> factor was the type of vegetable (Water spinach, Chinese cabbage, Celery
> cabbage and Mustard green). Fertilization was with biodigester effluent
> (10kg N/ha applied to all treatments. The area of each plot was 1.6m2(2.0m length x 0.8m width) with spacing between each plot of 0.5m. The
> experiment lasted 35 days. The biochar (pH 9.3; OM 29.4% in DM) was from a
> paddy rice drier (combustion temperature with rice husks as feedstock was
> about 500°C).
>
> Increasing the application of biochar from 0 to 5 kg/m2 led to linear
> increases in biomass DM yield of 39, 100, 300 and 350 % for Water spinach,
> Chinese cabbage, Celery cabbage and Mustard green, respectively. Soil
> quality was improved after the 35 day trial (pH 6.82-7.13; OM 22.6 -
> 25.7%). The chemical composition of the biomass DM showed average increases
> in crude protein from 13.7 to 18.1% for leaves and from 7.23 to 9.16 for
> stems. By contrast, crude fiber in leaves decreased from 14.5 to 9.27% in
> DM while in stems it fell from 15.6 to 10.7%. "
>
> *# Note the large difference in reported results for biochar
> application... 39% DM increase for Water Spinnach, and 350% DM increase for
> Mustard Greens. The difference is more than a factor of 10, so something
> very interesting is happening. One very simple explanantion is that the
> Mustard Greens benefitted from the pH increase more than did the Water
> Spinnach.*
>
>
> Preston acknowledged in his Introduction the fact that biochar has an
> impact on soil pH.
> He hides nothing:
>
> *Biochar is a fine-grained porous substance that resembles charcoal
> produced by natural burning. However, biochar is produced by the
> combustion of biomass under oxygen limited conditions at high
> temperatures (from 600 to 1000 °C) in a gasifier. As most of the mineral
> matter in biomass is composed of salts of K, Na and Ca, it has a strong
> alkaline reaction giving rise to a pH of between 8 and 10 (Rodriguez et al
> 2009). Thus application of biochar as a soil amender is especially
> appropriate in acid soils with a low content of organic matter. Biochar is
> unlikely to have a major role as a fertilizer but, because of its
> structure, it can be expected to increase water-holding capacity, and be a
> good habitat for microbes and plant nutrients*.
>
> *# Dr. Preston is correct in acknowledging the beneficial effect of
> biochar for raising soil pH when increased pH is desired. *
>
> A bit further he explains:
> *The soil used in the experiment showed improvements as reflected in
> increased content of organic matter, nitrogen and pH as a result of the
> addition of biochar.*
> *# It would have been very interesting to have seen an "Analysis set" as
> follows:*
> *a: Initial soil OM content*
> *b: Initial soil OM Content + Biochar, analysed for "Total Organic Matter
> Content" BEFORE growth trials*
> *c: Initial soil OM Content + Biochar, analysed for "Total Organic Matter
> Content" AFTER growth trials.*
> *I would suggest that biochar is NOT "Organic Matter", but rather it is
> simply "mineralized carbon", in that it does not provide nutrition for soil
> organisms, as does "conventional OM". The difference between the "b: and
> "c:" data sets would show the true OM increase.*
> **
>
> Let us look at the ideal pH for growing mustard greens:
> http://www.heirloomseeds.com/sthrn-veg.htm
> The pH for growing mustard greens varies between 5.5 and 7.5.
> Some people suggest a pH between 6 and 7.
> In any case, a number of 6 is still quite acceptable:
>
> The starting pH of the soil in this experiment was 5.8.
> Where did Kevin get this number of 4.5?
> How did he come up with this number?
> What motivated him to come up with this number!!!
>
> *# Firstly, the 4.5 pH number was from recollection, and apparently I
> recollected wrong. There was no intent or motivation to misquote the
> Report, but simply to illustrate my point. If my posting to Anand and the
> List is corrected to 5.8, instead of the erroneous 4.5, then the message I
> was intending to convey is the same.
> *
>
> If an acceptable pH for mustard greens is 6.0,
> and if the starting pH in this experiment was 5.8,
> how can Kevin be so sure that the entire positive effect of biochar can
> be summarized only in terms of pH?
>
> *# Firstly, the general pH range of 5.5 to 7.5 is widely used as a
> "generally good pH for soils", simply because of solubility conditions
> where most of the macro and micro nutrients necessary for good plant growth
> are in a "generally acceptable range." To take two extremes, (again from
> memory), Iron has an reasonable solubility at (about) pH5.5(?) and
> Molybdenum has a maximum availability at about 7.5(?) Thus Rodedendrons,
> who are very dependant on Iron might grow in a soil of pH6, but very
> poorly, because the pH might be too high, and Alfalfa, with a strong need
> for Moly would also grow very poorly, because the Moly availability was too
> low. Thus, adding high ash biochar to such a soil, to bring the pH to say
> 7.5 would probably kill the Rhodies dead, but the Alfalfa would likely show
> an extremely good improvement in growth. So, if one wanted to structure a
> test to show that "biochar was bad", one would use Rhodies, or other
> ericaceous plants, like blueberries, and get "killer results", while if one
> wanted to make biochar look very good, one would run the biochar tests on
> Alfalfa, and get wonderful results.*
> * *
> *# Now, I am not absolutely sure that Mustard Greens will be as
> responsive to pH change as Alfalfa would likely be, in that I have not done
> experiments to get supporting evidence, but I do know that pH is very
> important, and that when there is a wide range in pH change, bad stuff (or
> good stuff!) can happen. The experiment I suggested above would go a long
> way to proving the degree to which of the positive effects Reg observed
> were due to pH adjustment, and which were due to "pure biochar." As noted
> above, the Mustard Greens (like the Alfalfa) might be a plant that benefits
> significantly from pH, while Water Spinnach may not. *
>
> Also Kevin has made mention several time of the biochar study Dr. Preston
> did with respect to cattle.
> Let us take a look at this study:
> http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd24/11/leng24199.htm
>
> The study was conducted over a period of 98 days. The cattle fed biochar
> gained 129 grams per day. The cattle without biochar gained 103 grams per
> day. The difference between these two numbers is 26 grams (a little over
> 25%).
>
> At the end of the study, the cattle with biochar gained 12.642 kgs, while
> the cattle without biochar gained 10.094 kgs.
>
> Preston did not claim that at the end of the study the cattle with biochar
> were 25% heavier than the cattle without biochar. He simply said that
> during this experiment the cattle with biochar put on 25% more weight than
> the cattle without biochar. The key concept here is *live weight gain* -
> a term used quite often in animal studies. This is what he reported: "*Live
> weight gain was increased 25% by adding biochar to the diet DM..*" There
> is absolutely nothing misleading about the manner in which he made such a
> claim, and his claim was consistent with all of the data reported in the
> paper.
>
> *# My concern here is that Readers will miss the subtlety in Dr.
> Preston's statement: If biochar was promoted as "giving a 25% live weight
> gain", I would guess that most Farmers would figure that "with biochar, I
> can add 250 pounds to my 1000 pound cow." However, with Dr. Preston's
> reporting methodology, he is reporting on "differential weight gain", not
> "live weight gain." With this reporting methodology, the Farmer with one
> cow could go from 1,000 pounds to 1,100 pounds on his present ration,
> and another 1,000 lb cow on the biochar ration could gain to 1,125 pounds,
> and a "25% differential weight gain" could truly be claimed. In this latter
> case, the "Live Weight Gain" is only 12.5%
>
> *
> Also I have no reason to doubt the numbers he reported with respect to
> enteric methane reduction (reductions up to 41%). If the cow produces less
> methane, one might expect that DM feed conversion would improve and that
> the cow would put on more weight. These numbers with respect to methane
> reduction are truly amazing.
>
> *# Yes, indeed, the results were amazing. Unfortunately, the above link
> does not work for me at the present, but I believe the enteric methane
> reduction is due to the presence of increased nitrate content in the diet.
> Again, biochar may have helped on an incremental basis, but it may not have
> been, or was not, the prime cause of the improvement. I also understand
> that chicken manure can be fed to cattle to get the same benefit, because
> if its high nitrate content.*
>
> In his paper Dr. Preston did not attempt to deceived or mislead.
> His science is good science, and it is grounded in over 50 years working
> with cattle.
>
> *# Dr. Preston may indeed be correct, and I may be wrong. However, I do
> think that my concerns are valid at this stage, and that proper future
> testing can sort out the issues. *
>
> *Best wishes,*
>
> *Kevin*
>
>
> Thanks.
> Paul
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Kevin <kchisholm at ca.inter.net> wrote:
>
>> **
>> Dear Anand
>>
>> The impressive yield improvement may have been due to neither the
>> minerals nor the biochar, but simply as a result of pH adjustment by the
>> ash content of the biochar. As I recall, the original "Control Soil" used
>> in the Preston Report had a pH in the range of about 4.5, while the
>> "biochar soil" with the maximum yield had a pH in the range of 7-7.5.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Kevin
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> *From:* Anand Karve <adkarve at gmail.com>
>> *To:* Discussion of biomass cooking stoves<stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
>> *Sent:* Thursday, March 21, 2013 9:53 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: [Stoves] [biochar] First report from Phnom Penh
>>
>> Dear Paul, Ron and others,
>> I was instrumental in the development of an urban biogas plant, which
>> does not use cattle dung but uses food waste as feedstock. One kg dry
>> weight of starch, sugar, cellulose, protein or any other kind of human food
>> produces about 1 kg biogas. My biogas plant could normally accept only
>> 1gram (dry weight) food waste per litre capacity of digester. Our
>> experiments in which the biogas digester was filled with charcoal made it
>> possible to increase the quantity of food waste to three grams per litre,
>> with three times as much biogas becoming available from the same
>> plant. This worked for about three months and then the higher efficiency
>> was no longer available. It is a common observation, that a biogas plant
>> works better, if chemical fertilizers are added to the feedstock. I have
>> been thinking about this and it appears to me that it was the minerals in
>> the biochar, that were contributing to this phenomenon. After the organisms
>> in the biogas plant had consumed the minerals, the higher efficiency was no
>> longer available.
>> The same phenomenon might be responsible for the higher yield in fields
>> provided with biochar.
>> Yours
>> A.D.Karve
>> On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Paul Olivier <paul.olivier at esrla.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Kevin,
>>>
>>> Thanks very much for your reflection. Toward the end, you raise the
>>> interesting question: which is worth more, biochar as a fuel or biochar as
>>> an agricultural product? Let me come down strongly in favor of biochar as
>>> an agricultural product. At the end of the same presentation, I ask the
>>> question: what is the value of biochar when cattle put on 25% more weight
>>> than those in the control group, when enteric methane emissions from the
>>> same cattle are reduced by 42%, when mustard greens grow at a rate 400%
>>> faster than the control group, or when the same mustard greens have 40%
>>> less fiber and 35% more protein? About 20 experiments were carried put with
>>> rice hull biochar from my gasifiers, and all indicated much higher plant
>>> and animal growth. How then do we put a value on biochar, when current
>>> prices for biochar do not yet reflect this new reality? If we burn biochar,
>>> all goes up in a puff of smoke. If we use biochar in agriculture, we use a
>>> lot less feed and a lot less fertilizer for the same end result, and the
>>> benefits stay with us a very long time.
>>>
>>> We stand in urgent need for a lot more biochar studies in a lot more
>>> agricultural settings. What we are trying to do at the moment is to
>>> understand why biochar has such a dramatic effect when used in agriculture.
>>> Yes, we can point to its pore structure, to its surface area, to its cation
>>> and anion exchange capacities, to its pH and to its water-holding capacity.
>>> But these elements alone do not give a complete picture. Over 20 years ago,
>>> Japanese scientists were pointing out how biochar promotes the growth of
>>> abuscular mycorrhizal fungi. I have a strong suspicion that these
>>> scientists were leading us in the right direction. So in some of the next
>>> biochar studies that Dr. Preston will conduct, he will focus on how biochar
>>> promotes the growth of AM fungi.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>> Paul
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Kevin <kchisholm at ca.inter.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> **
>>>> Dear Paul
>>>>
>>>> Thanks very much for your very interesting slide Presentation on your
>>>> Stove, and the explanation of "Rice Hull Biochar and Fuel Gas
>>>> Production.Economics."
>>>>
>>>> Basically, 1 kg of free rice hulls yields $US 0.24 worth of pyrolysis
>>>> gas for heating and 350 grams of Rice Hull Biochar worth about $0.30 per
>>>> kg, or say $ 0.10
>>>>
>>>> A typical Vietnamese Family would consume about 1 MT of Rice Hulls per
>>>> year, producing pyrolysis gas for cooking, worth about $240, and 350 kG of
>>>> Biochar worth about $100, total $350 per year in the value of cooking
>>>> energy + biochar sales per year.
>>>>
>>>> If your #150 stove sold for $40, it could pay for itself in less than
>>>> 1/2 year, with sales of biochar alone, the value of the pyrolysis gases for
>>>> cooking would be the equivalent of about 1 bottle of LPG per month, ie, an
>>>> additional $22 per month of "free money." If the use of the pyrolysis gas
>>>> displaced the need to purchase 1 bottle of LPG per month, then total
>>>> savings would be about $22 + $8 = $30 per month, and the stove would be
>>>> paid for in less than 2 months. This indeed would be a very attractive
>>>> money making investment for the family.
>>>>
>>>> The method of financing the stoves that you propose is very attractive
>>>> to the Typical Family, where a Charcoal Merchant would supply the stove to
>>>> the Family, and they would pay for the stove with the charcoal they
>>>> produced.
>>>>
>>>> The above numbers indicate that, at $0.30 per kG, the char production
>>>> sells for $300 per MT.. If this was the value of the char, when sold into
>>>> the "Biochar market", what would be the value of the char when sold into
>>>> the "Charcoal Fuel market"?, If the value of the char when sold into the
>>>> "Biochar Market" was greater than its value when sold into the Charcoal
>>>> Fuel Market, then it would get used as biochar, but if it had more value as
>>>> Charcoal fuel, it would be advantageous to the Family to sell it into the
>>>> fuel market.
>>>>
>>>> it looks like you have a very attractive Stove Project!
>>>>
>>>> Best wishes for every success!
>>>>
>>>> Kevin
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> *From:* Paul Olivier <paul.olivier at esrla.com>
>>>> *To:* Discussion of biomass cooking stoves<stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
>>>> *Cc:* biochar at yahoogroups.com ; adrian at rocketworks.org ;
>>>> sonta at emerging.se ; Ruben at ace.co.ls ; Priyadarshini Karve<pkarve at arti-india.org>
>>>> *Sent:* Monday, March 18, 2013 9:08 PM
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Stoves] [biochar] First report from Phnom Penh
>>>>
>>>> Kevin,
>>>>
>>>> Biochar can have significant value even in poor countries. For example,
>>>> here in Dalat rice hull biochar is used extensively as a soil amendment.
>>>> If a poor household can produce one kg of biochar per day and sell it at a
>>>> fair market price, this will cover the cost of the means to produce it in
>>>> less than a year. A lot more money has to be devoted to biochar research in
>>>> a variety of agricultural applications. Once farmers understand the value
>>>> of biochar with respect to the specific plants or animals they grow, there
>>>> will be a rush to produce it. The high-grade heat produced in making
>>>> biochar can be used for cooking, and as a by-product of biochar production,
>>>> it becomes available to the household free-of-charge. To waste this heat,
>>>> as some propose to do, is incredibly short-sighted. The sale of biochar
>>>> should be able to cover not only the cost of the biomass from which it was
>>>> derived, but in time it should also cover the means to produce it. That is
>>>> why I push hard against those who want to use biochar as a fuel.
>>>>
>>>> Let us suppose that a gasifier costs $50 US dollars. Let us suppose
>>>> that a household produces one kg of biochar per day at a value of only
>>>> $0.20 US per kg. This represents an income of about $6.00 US dollars per
>>>> month. In less than a year the cost of the gasifier is covered.
>>>>
>>>> Here in Vietnam LPG sells for about $22 US dollars per bottle. Some
>>>> households consume up to two bottles of LPG each month. This works out to a
>>>> monthly fuel cost of $44 US dollars. This reliance on fossil fuels is
>>>> killing and has to stop.
>>>>
>>>> https://dl.dropbox.com/u/22013094/Paper/Presentations/Gasification.ppsx
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 12:05 AM, Kevin <kchisholm at ca.inter.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> **
>>>>> Dear Ron
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for your very interesting report to date on "The Big Event."
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that one thing that could be very helpful is a Graph showing "
>>>>> Stove Price" versus "Potential Customers." Clearly, if a person is earning
>>>>> say $1 per day, and the stove cost $70, this would be equivalent to 70 days
>>>>> income. Here in Canada, where the minimum wage is $10 per hour, or $80 per
>>>>> day, a stove costing 70 days income would cost $5,600.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or, to look at it from the other direction, "What price would a stove
>>>>> have to sell for, so that 90% of the World's Population could afford to buy
>>>>> it"
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>
>>>>> Kevin
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> *From:* rongretlarson at comcast.net
>>>>> *To:* Discussion of biomass <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org> ;
>>>>> biochar <biochar at yahoogroups.com>
>>>>> *Cc:* Priyadarshini Karve <pkarve at arti-india.org> ; ,"paul anderson<psanders at ilstu.edu>; Crispin
>>>>> Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at gmail.com> ; Ruben at ace.co.ls ;
>>>>> adrian at rocketworks.org ; sonta at emerging.se
>>>>> *Sent:* Monday, March 18, 2013 11:19 AM
>>>>> *Subject:* [biochar] First report from Phnom Penh
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi to two lists (with 6 ccs)
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. This written at end of "first" day of conference. Actually the
>>>>> official first GACC day is tomorrow, but today was also the second day of
>>>>> pre-conference activities.. List members active on these two lists, here
>>>>> (and shown on the "to" list), who I hope will add more are Priya Karve,
>>>>> Paul Anderson and Crispin Pemberton-Piggott. I missed the first day -
>>>>> Sunday - returning from Siem Reap - home of Angkor Wat. This is
>>>>> definitely the most impressive world heritage site I have seen or could
>>>>> imagine. Uniformly impressed by the Cambodian people.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. My overall impression is that very few attendees know much about
>>>>> biochar nor char-making stoves. Of course most everyone knows something
>>>>> about stoves - although I would guess that fewer than half have been
>>>>> involved for more than a year or t wo Heard tonight that there are 650
>>>>> registrants. Great conference facilities; no conference registration fee
>>>>> and fair number of freebie meals, coffee-break treats etc.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. My first surprise char-making stove encounter was with Sonta
>>>>> Kauti, a Zambian with "Emerging Cooking Solutions" - whose stove can be
>>>>> seen at www.emerging.se. I have not yet seen the actual stove, nor
>>>>> yet know its pricing - but plan more talks with Sonta
>>>>>
>>>>> 4. Next was a short encounter with Ruben Walker of "African Clean
>>>>> Energy" (see http://www.ace.co.ls/), now manufacturing in Lesotho
>>>>> the "Philips" fan stove developed by Paul van der Sluis (PvdS). This has
>>>>> been identified as having the best performance characteristics so far
>>>>> tested. This was my first chance to hold one - and it looks exceptionally
>>>>> well made. A surprise was the set of 10 or 12 (?) flat ceramic liner
>>>>> pieces for the interior (maybe 1 cm thick??).&nb sp; Presumably long life
>>>>> time - being non-metal. Ruben said one could hold the outside of the
>>>>> stove after an hour of cooking -possible because there are four concentric
>>>>> metal cylinders (three concentric air gaps). This stove is not char
>>>>> making - but I remember hearing that PvdS regularly operates it as a
>>>>> charcoal-maker. Cost in neighborhood of $70.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 5. Later, at this evening's reception, Mr. Adrian Padt of "Rocket
>>>>> Works" introduced himself (see http://www.rocketworks.org/ -
>>>>> including photo of Adrian). This is the stove with the interesting heavy
>>>>> wire mesh exterior that we discussed a few months ago - also can be held.
>>>>> This also looked exceptionally well made and rugged. Cost in the
>>>>> neighborhood of $50. In addition to the version seen at the site, they
>>>>> are now adding a door to better control excess air.
>>>>>
>>>>> 6. I attended a day-long session put on by the World B ank and the
>>>>> Asian Development Bank.- the emphasis was on country organizations in this
>>>>> region. Crispin was on what I thought the best panel - on testing, etc.
>>>>> This is to hope that Priya, Paul, and Crispin (and anyone else from these
>>>>> lists here in Phnom Penh) will also add their early summary thoughts.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Any questions I/we can try to answer?
>>>>>
>>>>> Ron
>>>>>
>>>>> __._,_.___
>>>>> Reply via web post<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJyNWpzajRmBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIyNDM4MDUyBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNzQxODYxMgRtc2dJZAMxNDY3MARzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNycGx5BHN0aW1lAzEzNjM2MTYzNTc-?act=reply&messageNum=14670> Reply
>>>>> to sender
>>>>> <rongretlarson at comcast.net?subject=Re%3A%20First%20report%20from%20Phnom%20Penh> Reply
>>>>> to group
>>>>> <biochar at yahoogroups.com?subject=Re%3A%20First%20report%20from%20Phnom%20Penh> Start
>>>>> a New Topic<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJmdWw3aTFvBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIyNDM4MDUyBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNzQxODYxMgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNudHBjBHN0aW1lAzEzNjM2MTYzNTc-> Messages
>>>>> in this topic<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/message/14670;_ylc=X3oDMTM3OWpzaGUwBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIyNDM4MDUyBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNzQxODYxMgRtc2dJZAMxNDY3MARzZWMDZnRyBHNsawN2dHBjBHN0aW1lAzEzNjM2MTYzNTcEdHBjSWQDMTQ2NzA->(1)
>>>>> Recent Activity:
>>>>>
>>>>> - New Members<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJnazBoMWhyBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIyNDM4MDUyBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNzQxODYxMgRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2bWJycwRzdGltZQMxMzYzNjE2MzU3?o=6>
>>>>> 2
>>>>>
>>>>> Visit Your Group<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar;_ylc=X3oDMTJmZG8xaXZzBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIyNDM4MDUyBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNzQxODYxMgRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzEzNjM2MTYzNTc->
>>>>> [image: Yahoo! Groups]<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJlZWZoZ2gxBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzIyNDM4MDUyBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNzQxODYxMgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTM2MzYxNjM1OA-->
>>>>> Switch to: Text-Only<biochar-traditional at yahoogroups.com?subject=Change+Delivery+Format:+Traditional>,
>>>>> Daily Digest<biochar-digest at yahoogroups.com?subject=Email+Delivery:+Digest>•
>>>>> Unsubscribe <biochar-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>• Terms
>>>>> of Use <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> • Send us Feedback
>>>>> <ygroupsnotifications at yahoogroups.com?subject=Feedback+on+the+redesigned+individual+mail+v1>
>>>>> .
>>>>>
>>>>> __,_._,___
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Stoves mailing list
>>>>>
>>>>> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
>>>>> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>>>>>
>>>>> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
>>>>>
>>>>> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
>>>>>
>>>>> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web
>>>>> site:
>>>>> http://www.bioenergylists.org/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Paul A. Olivier PhD
>>>> 26/5 Phu Dong Thien Vuong
>>>> Dalat
>>>> Vietnam
>>>>
>>>> Louisiana telephone: 1-337-447-4124 (rings Vietnam)
>>>> Mobile: 090-694-1573 (in Vietnam)
>>>> Skype address: Xpolivier
>>>> http://www.esrla.com/
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Stoves mailing list
>>>>
>>>> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
>>>> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>>>>
>>>> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
>>>>
>>>> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
>>>>
>>>> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:
>>>> http://www.bioenergylists.org/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Stoves mailing list
>>>>
>>>> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
>>>> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>>>>
>>>> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
>>>>
>>>> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
>>>>
>>>> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:
>>>> http://www.bioenergylists.org/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Paul A. Olivier PhD
>>> 26/5 Phu Dong Thien Vuong
>>> Dalat
>>> Vietnam
>>>
>>> Louisiana telephone: 1-337-447-4124 (rings Vietnam)
>>> Mobile: 090-694-1573 (in Vietnam)
>>> Skype address: Xpolivier
>>> http://www.esrla.com/
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Stoves mailing list
>>>
>>> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
>>> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>>>
>>> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
>>>
>>> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
>>>
>>> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:
>>> http://www.bioenergylists.org/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ***
>> Dr. A.D. Karve
>> Trustee & Founder President, Appropriate Rural Technology Institute (ARTI)
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Stoves mailing list
>>
>> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
>> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>>
>> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
>>
>> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
>>
>> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:
>> http://www.bioenergylists.org/
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Stoves mailing list
>>
>> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
>> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>>
>> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
>>
>> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
>>
>> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:
>> http://www.bioenergylists.org/
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Paul A. Olivier PhD
> 26/5 Phu Dong Thien Vuong
> Dalat
> Vietnam
>
> Louisiana telephone: 1-337-447-4124 (rings Vietnam)
> Mobile: 090-694-1573 (in Vietnam)
> Skype address: Xpolivier
> http://www.esrla.com/
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
>
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
>
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:
> http://www.bioenergylists.org/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
>
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
>
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:
> http://www.bioenergylists.org/
>
>
>
--
Paul A. Olivier PhD
26/5 Phu Dong Thien Vuong
Dalat
Vietnam
Louisiana telephone: 1-337-447-4124 (rings Vietnam)
Mobile: 090-694-1573 (in Vietnam)
Skype address: Xpolivier
http://www.esrla.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130324/33556390/attachment.html>
More information about the Stoves
mailing list