David Drexler wrote:
> Greetings Lion,
>
> Thanks for the clarification on the carbon seq. I am an old time farmer and tree farmer and never did
> quite understand how the soil could hold such amounts of carbon.
>
> Trees are mostly carbon. And are a long term solution . But eventually the tree either dies or cut and
> made into a product.
>
> I have had recent discussions with the Au. about carbon seq. They place trees high on the list for
> carbon seq. Paulownia is perhaps the highest on the list according to them. The big leaves certainly
> sink lots of CO2. And I can grow them to a forest with a closed canopy in three summers growth.
>
> Thanks again for the clarification.
> DD
>
> Lion Kuntz wrote:
>
> > --------------------
> > Carbon Sequestration
> > --------------------
> >
> > Much discussion on CARBON SEQUESTRATION seems to have misunderstood the difference between
> > short-term carbon-cycles and long-term carbon removal from the ecosphere.
> >
> > Some hundreds of millions of years ago one of the great die-offs or mass extinctions occurred. The
> > plant and animal life was killed off in such massive quantities that perhaps 90% of all living
> > beings died roughly simultaneously. Even bacteria must have been affected, because the remains were
> > not dispersed by (micro) life but accumlated as asphalt, coal, gas and oil deposits.
> >
> > Archeologists identify this time with the name "Caboniferous Era", which is a rather appropriate
> > name. The carbon compounds making up the previously-living bodies of this ecosphere was
> > "sequestered" out of the cycles of use and reuse of carbon compounds in the remaining living
> > ecosphere.
> >
> > With mining the Carboniferous compounds, and burning them into the atmosphere, an entire ecosystem
> > of carbon is being returned into circulation on top of the normal carbon in perpetual cycling. This
> > fossil carbon plus the perpetually recycling carbon of the living ecosphere is causing the worrisome
> > "greenhouse" gases accumulation to levels causing climate changing consequences.
> >
> > The closest approximation we can reproduce of this long-term sequestration is in old-growth forests,
> > where over 90% of the trees are dead carbonaceous matter covered by a thin venier of living tissues.
> > Increases in big long-lifespan forest trees is the only meaningful method of sequestering large
> > quantities of carbon out of circulation from the atmosphere.
> >
> > What is being discussed as "carbon-sequestration" in no-till agriculture is a meaningless quantity
> > by comparison of the constant infusion from fossil sources. Ten inches of topsoil cannot sequester
> > the quantities of carbon that can be impounded by tall trees of mature forests.
> >
> > The "carbon-sequestering" in soil is the inert residue of "dead humus". The definition of species is
> > the reproductively successful matching of close DNA parents, but an equally correct definition is
> > the uniqueness of proteins manufactured by the DNA. DNA, after all, can only make proteins.
> >
> > Some unique proteins cannot serve as digestible foods by any form of life, and these "skeletons"
> > accumulate in the soil as "dead humus" of no nutritional value for any form of soil-life. "Living
> > humus" on the other hand is consumed in faster or slower rates by the decomposers and consumers in
> > the micro-herd of the soil, and is constantly replenished and consumed.
> >
> > --------------------
> > Carbon Cycling
> > --------------------
> >
> > As opposed to "sequestration", carbon is merely stored for short (or shorter) intervals in the soil
> > before being returned to the living ecosphere. This temporarily idle carbon is returned to the
> > atmosphere in time periods of minutes to months, rarely ever in time periods measured as long as
> > years. Such portion of it as is eroded and lost downstream is not sequestered any more than that
> > portion remaining tied up in soil particles still on dry land. Both forms are still in the food
> > chain webs and will find their way back into atmospheric circulation.
> >
> > Whatever merits or demerits "no-till" agriculture has to offer, "carbon sequestration" is not a
> > significant factor.
> >
> > If a non-scientifically inclined lay-person wished to get a better understanding of the long-term,
> > versus short-term, cycles of the GAIA planetary system they might read James Lovelock's books
> > [especially HEALING GAIA]. Although he has been severely criticised (mainly because of the hairy
> > hippies who have adopted "GAIA" as a sort of druid religion) his chemical principles and logic have
> > never been challenged.
> >
> > Whatever good Steve Groff is doing with his no-till system, it is not significant in making
> > contributions offsetting the reductions in forests or the insertion of massive quantities of fossil
> > carbon. It is time to change the subject away from token and insignificant contributions, and
> > examine the rates of introduction of carbon, and the rates of long-term sequestration.
> >
> > If carbon sequestration is a goal to be accomplished, than the progress in reforestation of the
> > Earth at a rate fast enough to match the introduction of fossil carbon is mandatory. Since trees do
> > not impound carbon quickly, and they take decades to grow once planted, the goal must be to stay
> > ahead of the rate of fossil carbon release by decades.
> >
> > In order to free-up lands for reforestation, agriculture must get very much more productive, so as
> > to shrink down the amount of space required. Up to three-quarters of the United States is devoted to
> > Agriculture, and the equivilent of the continent of South America represents the global
> > agricultural-sequestered lands.
> >
> > Rearranging the chairs on the deck of the sinking Titanic is not going to change the overall large
> > picture: two whole ecosystems (the CARBONiferous and the modern era) worth of carbon are being
> > released with no mechanism to sequester the fossil influx at any meaningful rate. The discussion
> > must leave meaningless token gestures of saving cupfuls of "dead humus" per acre per year. I have no
> > doubts that Steve Groff sincerely believes that he is doing a good service in no-till agriculture,
> > but an audit of Steve Groff's farm might show differently.
> >
> > Most all ammonia-based Nitrogen fertilizers are derived from natural gas or distilled from coal. The
> > fossil-carbon release byproducts of manufacture of the synthetic fertilizer used on Steve Groff's
> > farm might easily exceed the teaspoonfuls of carbonized skeletons of dead humus buried in the top
> > few inches of soil. The mechanized tractors required to no-till the land consume their gasoline or
> > diesel fuels at rates undoutably larger than is sustainable by the atmosphere or the climate, even
> > if they might be narrowly sustainable examining only the issue of soil fertility.
> >
> > I am not accussing Steve Groff of any bad things. As an example he is head and shoulders higher than
> > most other participants on SANET who actually describe their growing systems. He is even closer to
> > J.I.Rodale's defintion of a natural organic farmer in the book "PAY DIRT" published in 1947. Rodale,
> > in that book says such things as "if you do what I am recommending you will not have to spray NEARLY
> > SO MUCH". [That is not an exact quote: I lost my copy of the book last winter so I have to recall
> > from memory.]
> >
> > The problem is: if Steve Groff is the best example of agricultural productivity and TOTALLY
> > sustainable practices, than we as a species are pretty much doomed, because, as MISHA can tell you,
> > the ecological footprint of each of us is trodding the life-support system to death. When GAIA dies
> > we all die. Being sustainable means: making a living, not killing the soil, not harming the
> > customers, not killing the world. Any single one of these missing spells failure.
> >
> > Now I am not out to start a feud with Steve Groff. I am not singling him out for criticism. I am not
> > making myself a target for the hate-filled letter-writers looking for any target of opportunity. I
> > am trying to get the discussion out of wheel-spinning in the mud where it is stuck, quibbling over
> > teaspoons of carbon "sequestered" in the soil while actually spilling gallons per hour in the air.
> >
> > Sincerely, Lion Kuntz
> > LionKuntz@aol.com, LionKuntz@email.com, LifeSaviors@nav.to
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------
> > FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com
> > Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
> >
> > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@cals.ncsu.edu with the command
> > "unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
> > "unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
> > To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@cals.ncsu.edu with the command
> > "subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
> >
> > All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
> > http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@cals.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@cals.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 11 2000 - 22:02:15 EDT