lesismore1,
The pine needle has a wax coating, that is why they are used for mulch by non composter.
I worked with a nurseryman who turned the old straw over before adding new straw.
This was to break up the layer of wax under the matted straw that would act as a water shed.He said the water would run out of the bed into the lawn.
Many composter I know shred the pine straw so the micro's can get to the broken ends.

"Water vapour is a proven commodity for its effect, ALL ELSE is guess work that cannot be proven - simple fact."

If we cannot agree on the facts, we are not going to get far.

I got it - I'll stick to my environmental chemistry if you'll stick to your English. :-]

I think it is very high price & that is before shipping!
We on this thread are talking about if it is safe & productive.
mauser just wants to sale something.
RpR do you have a link?
I would like to hear this from more then one source.

If you mean about the effects of a EMP here is one on nukes and one on how the military is developoing conventional weapons to do this on a smaller scale.

http://gigaom.com/cleantech/why-an-electromagnetic-threat-shouldnt-be-a-smart-grid-issue/

http://www.ausairpower.net/ASPC-E-Bomb-Mirror.html

If you mean greehouse gasses:
Here is one:

http://climateclash.com/?p=543

I read Aviation Week and Space Technology, the problems and effects of EMPs are mentioned in it and such journals often.

RpR, thinks for the links.
Everyone think you for your replies.
This thread give a body things to think about.

This link is a study on bio-char garden study.

Here is a link that might be useful: Bio-char study

i really think a long bow is being draw in that study link, that is the natives chopped down trees to create farm land they burnt those trees in the open and the bi-product ash and charcoal was incorporated into the soil as a way of disposal, not a deliberate act to supposedly improve the soils and of course 2k years later on the benefits by appearance seem obvious and it fits the modern story very well.

it is and always will be slash and burn technology, we have never used the stuff never felt the need to use it, our plants are all healthy with only green mulch (which provides nutrients as it breaks down) and rottable kitchen scraps, as well all spent vege' plants get tucked under where they once grew. so healthy plants and healthy food and not a bit of smoke to pollute.

someone commented if people aren't using electric cars then we have a giant carbon foot print i say those that sue those cars and support slash and burn have a bigger carbon foot print, and for what it is worth CO2 is heavier than air so how does it get to be the prime culprit in polluting the upper atmosphere, when methane and gases from burning are maybe the real culprits.

no scientific theories please i am scientific theorised to the hilt, lets deal in fact something science cannot do. the fact is terra preta slash and burn is not necessary whatsoever, if you happen to have ash from a home fire then by all means put it in the garden. we try to build proper homes that need no warming or cooling we use passive energy.

the meaning of theory does not change because science uses, it is still unprovable conjecture and hypothesis.

simple rule if it doesn't make sense and stand alone under the common sense rule of thumb then it is a con'.

len

Here is a link that might be useful: lens permaculture essay

yes a very high price joel and others, decimation of habitat forest and creating deserts over time, massive erosion wind and rain, massive sun damage to unprotected soils, removal of habitat accentuating a climate change hypothasy yes removing habitat change climate, makes it hotter, colder, wetter (if you are lucky) and mostly drier, regular seasons no longer persist, then science hops on the band wagon to make a whip for our backs.

science supports the falacy of planting windmills and solar farms and solar panels on rooves as an answer that is not going to be the case even now those who support that premise are discovering that manufacturing these things right from mining has a huge footprint and there is only scientific conjecture that a process is carbon neutral no such thing once carbon is created it is out there, and we need trees to suck it up taxes will not suck it up. just like battery cars a feel good falacy.

i got nothing to sell only applying common sense and hans christian anderson's tale "the emporer's new clothes" that is the type of con all this slash and burn and climate change stuff is.

len

Here is a link that might be useful: lens emporers new clothes

I'm wondering why nobody mentioned the shards of pottery... or was it mentioned, and I missed it?

In the authentic terra pretta, (that some people attempt to duplicate now) there are shards of pottery intermingled into the soil. Last I heard (its been years) nobody seemed to know why the pottery shards were there, but was believed to be a factor that contributed to the unique microbiology of that soil. (producing organic material at a rate that exceeds the rate it can be utilized, etc.)

Now, everyone is trying to make the biochar, but nobody is talking about the pottery thats found in the real terra pretta... found consistently there in layers of soil, 6, 12 feet thick. Just wondering why? Did science decide the pottery isn't a factor? Does anyone know how/why the pottery was buried with the charcoal in the first place? Because last I'd heard, they still didn't know. And they'd never sucessfully recreated terra pretta either. Maybe that's changed since then...if so, I haven't heard, but I've always been more curious about the pottery than the charcoal being there...

From what I have gathered today's biochar is like no-till garden in that it has draw backs, but is a work in progress.

les,

science is a power unto itself, never full on honest, the more who worship it so the grander they get in self opinionated. like the emporer's new clothes they work in a world of theoretical make believe, just like they did around oh! i dunno 800 years ago when they pleaded with chris' columbas not to sail off the edge of the flat world we live in.

just like then they are still closed minded, but lucky for us chris columbas had read the bible or at the very least had heard so in support of the bible from the muslims who knew that the world was not flat.

no till gardening is not a work in progress it works we have used it for over a decade now, no theory in it just growing naturally as nature does, no bodgey science needed, best bit we who have come to a simpler system have nothing to sell no glory to make our heads swell.

where would we be if columbas didn't go discover just sat in the bar?

len

Concerning pottery shards....Sir Albert Howard mentioned them in this link...one half way down the page under "The Use Of Potsherds In Green Manuring."

Here is a link that might be useful: Use of Shards

Science like religion filled with opinionated people, they all can not be right.Like this tread most are partly right, but no one see the whole picture clearly.
There are draw backs to No-till, but that is for another thread.

If we didn't have science, we'd have to invent it tomorrow. With all its flaws brought about by imperfect humans, the scientific method is still the tool that brought us out of darkness. It is only a tool and must be used properly, with an open mind, and this is done daily by many scientists. If we fail in this, it is not the fault of science, but of its human practitioners.

Science is experimenting and observing the results. No till agriculture is catching on because 1) researchers observed long term negative effects on soil and crops related to tilling, and 2) tests were done and results observed that showed no-till worked better. How is that not science?

Science should enlighten. I am afraid if this anti-science trend keeps up we will end up back in the Dark Ages again.

I don't think we will be back in the Dark ages from lack of science, but if anything, because of science...think nuclear bombs.

I think you'll find that a number of the top scientists who worked on the development of the Bomb were strongly anti-war and pro-arms-control. Einstein and Oppenheimer come to mind.

But that's beside the point. Let's not forget, scientists don't launch missiles, generals and politicians do.

toxcrusadr, every 10 year old knows about the "dust bowl".
But small farms have found that proper tilling in compost can help poor & hard soil. Tilling kills over wintering bad bugs up to 90% in some studies.
It is not anti-science to disagree with what one calls facts, but has not proven it to another. You could be 100% right 100% of the time , but you will be the first man I have met if you are.

The main problem with science/tists is that too many get so in love with themselves, they start to think-- If I can not do it it cannot be done, or-- my results are positive; therefore this is good for every one- every where.

The lab rats experiments to me are the most asine of all with obervations such as- I fed this rat the equivalent of five gallons of x day for a year- it got cancer-therefore x causes cancer.
I would love to take one of those scientists and put it through the regime they use on animals and see how long it would take before they started crying- this is unrealistic and has nothing to do with the natural process.
It proves nothing.

RpR, some studies do bare fruit, but most of the rat test are unreal.
I think it was 35 or so year ago,I was still home with mother.
The study feed rats a crunchy cold breakfast food.The rats started to eat each other for food.We got this treat once a week instead of grits, got vegetables at every meal & ate what was put on the table.

LOL, rpr doesn't know any scientists, but he sure knows what their main problem is

I know a few, they seem to be great people, but must folk are.

It is true that toxicity studies are often done at levels higher than an expected typical dose. However, they're done at various dosing levels, and a curve is established to predict an effects threshold level or dose. By definition, you can't find that level directly and experimentally. Toxicity is a matter of dose, it's not 'this is toxic and that is not.'

There are ethical issues with doing such tests on humans, which is why almost all of the data is from rats, rabbits and guinea pigs, except for lead, which so many people are exposed to that there is a good body of human data.

It is not a perfect system, but it is the best we have at this point in history. I'm not fond of poisoning animals in the name of protecting human health and the environment, and I hope we find something better.

It beats not doing anything and letting industry put whatever it wants on the market with no rules. I suspect the planet would be way worse off.

If you have informed opinions and suggestions for improving the science, by all means make them. But an awful lot of good smart people are already trying to do the same.

i dunno 800 years ago when they pleaded with chris' columbas not to sail off the edge of the flat world we live in.

LOL, what?

just like then they are still closed minded, but lucky for us chris columbas had read the bible or at the very least had heard so in support of the bible from the muslims who knew that the world was not flat.

LOL, what?

Piedmont:
My best class in high school and college was science, or biology as it is called.
I knew plenty of well educated people.

Not all fit the degree as I said, I said TOO MANY.

Way back in the late eighties the Scientific American ran an article, this was before that magazine became another politically biased rag, on what happened to scientists who buck the concensus opinion regardless of the fact they were eventually proved corrrect.
They were ostracized and when their FACT was proven to be true, they were still ostracized from thier chosen field forever.
For those of you with back copies, look it up.

piedmontnc, You know the world is not flat?
We are not the center of the universe.
And we are not alone.
And bio-char can not hurt the plant anymore then BBQ grills do.

RpR, I agree that syndrome is true and has been ever since Galileo. I was just reading about the high sugar diet of Americans and its effects on metabolism (metabolic syndrome) and the fact that two well known rival researchers had a to-do more than 20 years ago about this. One was basically discredited by the other, but turned out to be right. Unfortunately no one listened to his opinions for many years because of what the mudslinging did to his reputation.

Sadly, scientists are, after all, as human as the rest of us, with all that goes along with it.

These are great posts except for Tox's comment right after my post. Seriously, Tox.. were you not paying attention to the Kyoto Project? Doncha know the answer to global warming or climate change is to send our tax dollars to corrupt African officials never to be seen by the poor there and to regulate our uses? That Project failed, btw. Seriously, "a tin foil hat" label does not apply here. One need not be a rocket scientist to put the facts together.

I agree with LesIsMore1 completely. Most haven't the faintest clue what sustainability actually means, implies or includes. They're stuck on thinking and theorizing until they can actually spend sustain personal exertion creating that cycle of life called sustainable living or "permaculture". I do. Yet, most cannot for geographical location - a disadvantage Les and I do not have as well as a few others.

Still, these were great reads.

How are you and Les only not disadvantaged, exactly?

"Doncha know the answer to global warming or climate change is to send our tax dollars to corrupt African officials..."

If this kind of attitude prevails, we are in big trouble.

Now I am confused?
Not that it matters, but I though our tax dollars went to corrupt American Officials.
They wasted & stole the money instead of using it to improve the economy & the Green Industrie.
They should all be jailed with Burney M.

maybe think out side the box they have you in the tax dollars may not go there directly but i bet they do indirectly.

look out for the coming of a one world currency

take care gain wisdom from the truth of our roots.

len

Come on people! This is not a political forum. We're talking about charcoal as a soil amendment.

Come on people! This is not a political forum. We're talking about charcoal as a soil amendment.

Oh, fine:

Maybe think outside the charcoal they have you in. The organic matter may not go there directly but i bet they amend indirectly.
Look out for the coming of a biochar soil.
Take greens and browns and gain compost from the refuse of our roots.

There. That, I believe, does it.
:P

Well said gargwarb.
tox, what dose sugar diet & scientists are human have to do with Bio-Char.

Hey, I'm not on a high horse here, just trying to keep it out of the ditch. Anyway, the topic of science was just that, science, which arguably is at the root of this entire thread.

I just thought topics like Kyoto, wasted tax dollars and one-world currency were a bit far afield and not likely to further the cause of soil-building.

I wasn't implying you are. I just thought it would be a bit of fun to re-work a political post to make it more "soily". Sorry if it came off wrong.
(When I post I just get myself in trouble)

as there are more sustainable ways of soil building than slash and burn technology with a fancy name backed by self interest science.

len

Here is a link that might be useful: lens permaculture essay

I love making good soil and raising healthy plants. I believe in a level of sustainability, but it seems that the fanatical tend to hi-jack green movements and get it very political.

No worries here, mates.

Len, you might be right about that on a large scale in the Amazon rain forest or similar places. OTOH it could be argued that backyard use is a whole different thing. But I may be repeating earlier points, I haven't read the whole thread recently.

I do know I have 10 gal of 1/4" charcoal sifted from last winter's woodstove ash, and I'm definitely going to use it.

Charcoal is good for filtering bad stuff from the soil.

On a side note, its called climate change and its a natural thing. Our planet has been warming and cooling since the dawn of time. Just this year we have broke more records of heat then any other since we started keeping records. And just because there is still snow does not mean "global warming" is not real. Man didnt create global warming, god did. Man just accelerated it. Ice ages come every 12,000 years remember? Gets reeeal hot right before an ice age. So dont dis regard global warming just because you can still see snow and cool weather around. Its normal. Its been happening for thousands of years. This is nothing new, its happened before.

yes God's climate change is real, the scientific one is fake, we make things worse and keep in mind we do not have any position to influence the destruction of habitat forests for housing industry and agriculture and just for the sheer hell of it to turn trees 200 or so years old trees into pulp or chip.

if someone generated ash/char from a wood burning stove or heating appliance then the bi product should be used in the garden, so long as it comes from burning timber only maybe?

len

garenlen you keep talking up God & down on science.
You must known knowledge is good & God made the minds of all great men. What different does it make were the fuel comes from, the carbon feet print is the same.
Your polities do not make it okay or wrong.

"the scientific one is fake"

Even though without science, IOW, without geologists who observed and questioned, we wouldn't know about "god's climate change"?

pnbrown,

our observations and our belief tell us that all that happens about this planet which is home is done by God's hand, we need not any men who can feed us false doctrine on this matter.

we don't need any of those sciences, for me it matters not that gravity is what is identified as holding us onto the planet so we down here don't drop off, it is God's work at work.

yes the sciences are at the very least fake and possibly worse. like one person said how can we trust these climate change scientists to be making the right theory when we can little trust the medical sciences for our health. for us God delivers.

God bless my friend

len

Not much point in arguing this one any further.

AMEN, brother toxcrusadr.

The climate is changing, whether it is god's work or not. Anecdotal observations are now able to perceive it the pace of change is so great. It's possible that climate change is simply another of god's intentional disasters, like the flood.

well put pnbrown,

but may fall on deaf ears in this secular world.

take care

len

-deleted- nevermind...this is a 1.5 year old thread dug up for advertising's sake and it seems to be a weirdly toxic thread that deserves to die anyway...even though there's some good stuff in between the toxic and weirdness.

Biochar has limited uses in the garden (mostly structure uses, which can be done better in many soils) and it's value...like too many things considered "historic agriculture"...is occasionally widely overblown, especially considering it's pH and potassium load.

This post was edited by nc-crn on Sun, Jan 12, 14 at 16:14

LOL.....I add bio-char because I don't want to haul my fire pit soot anywhere else..I mix it into the leaves I roto till into my garden every September and I don't know if it helps or not. It looks like dirt and I have great gardens. I don't ph test I just add stuff that rots and 10 lbs of what ever lawn fertilizer is in the shop and I have great gardens...Our ancestors 100 years ago could barley read and they did just fine. Its gardening not rocket science.

have a great day