<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Dear Anand,<br>
It is well documented how new drugs are often compared in trials to
treatments that are not the best current treatment. Thus the not so
surprising favorable results. <br>
<br>
Physicist Richard Feynman would ask to see the data, so he could
draw his own conclusions, which could differ from the primary author.
<br>
"<b style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: sans-serif; font-size:
13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; letter-spacing:
normal; line-height: 19px; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2;
word-spacing: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Science
is the belief in the ignorance of experts" <br>
<br>
</b>What then is 'peer review'?<br>
<b style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: sans-serif; font-size:
13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; letter-spacing:
normal; line-height: 19px; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2;
word-spacing: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><br>
</b>So much of what we read about biochar sounds like a woefully
inadequate recipe for curry. Just add spices. Without
differentiating char characteristics and the conditions of treatment
soils, all we can conclude is further research is required, or go
back and do it right. If you multiply those variables you can put a
high quantity on 'expert ignorance'. Add a pinch of time span,and
biology, then good and bad results become curiosities. Terra Preta
may be a fine wine now but what was it back then. <br>
<br>
Unburned Char can have value right now. Potting mix, sorption of
nasties, crayons, even as insulation under hydronic heating lines.
Physics and chemistry are quick. Biology is a chronic research pain
that delights and confounds. <br>
<br>
Repeatedly we see reference to biochar being beneficial to 'highly
weathered" tropical soils. Would you characterize any of the soils
you added charcoal to as being "highly weathered"? <br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Alex<br>
<b style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: sans-serif; font-size:
13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; letter-spacing:
normal; line-height: 19px; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto;
text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal;
widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255); "><br>
</b><br>
On 31/12/2011 12:14 AM, Anand Karve wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:CACPy7SdfSJCj6zrWWQkhaG8EXtgaBT=iqx4Z0z0HShtyu4N2xQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div>Dear Kevin, Crispin and Ron,</div>
<div>I have been conducting experiments, off and on, for almost a
decade on effect of charcoal applied to the soil. Most of the
work consisted of very preliminary experiments, just to find out
if application of charcoal gave positive results. I would have
started a systematic study, if the preliminary results had
indicated that this was a useful technology. I never got beyond
the stage of preliminary experiments, because they did not
reveal to me any beneficial effects on crop yield. I never
reported the results in any formal publication, because the
experiments were of a very preliminary nature, not conducted in
statistically approved designs. Secondly, I want to say that It
is generally the tendency among scientists to cite references
that support one's findings. So picking and choosing of evidence
that supports one's point of view is quite common in scientific
publications.</div>
<div>Yours</div>
<div>A.D.Karve <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>