Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

homestead - Re: [Homestead] Earth charity

homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Homestead mailing list

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Jerry B <liberty AT kaballero.com>
  • To: homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [Homestead] Earth charity
  • Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 14:24:17 -0500


Gene, and Bill,

Though I am not a chemist, I have had college courses in organic chemistry, and over sixty years of experience in gardening. The impression one gets in the garden can be somewhat different than the quantifiable facts that such intensive observation and measurements provide. I suspect if you were to ask A. J. (thanks) Yeomans about the 20% figure, he would readily explain how he obtained this figure using his and his father's methods, and point out many examples at 20% levels of organic matter. Perhaps he already has. It has now been awhile since I read his book. He states, for example, that it is not unreasonable to obtain 25 tons of earthworms per acre, though before modern practices began in the fertile lands around the Nile, as much as 250 tons per acre were measured. Now that alone is a lot of carbon, with each worm capable of forming an equal weight of 'perfect soil' castings each day. How easy it would be to say ridiculous, even bull crap, just melodramatic attention-seeking. Just as fanciful to claim there are as many bacteria in 1/2 teaspoon of such fertile soil as are the number of persons presently on the earth. Science fiction, for certain!? Or was that types of bacteria? I'd have to reread it. I'm sure I'd lose count if I tried. Of what substance would these tiny organisms be comprised? And how did they get there? An interesting topic indeed.

Your statement about roots inclines me to think you have not yet read the reference chapter #5. Ignoring, or not considering the part that the formation of humic acids, for example, some of which can remain for thousands of years in the soil storing away tons and tons of C, one surely could not understand the process. If you have read the chapter, why do you not mention this? It is a *very* prominent, basic part of the thesis, and widely recognized soil chemistry, easily quantifiable, fairly well understood for many years. It is also straight forward to measure the wide range of disparity of C in 'unfertile' to super-fertile' soils. Have you seen the images of 'topsoil' yards deep? I think he speaks from experience when he tells how to do it in another chapter, and no, I do not think he is lying or even exaggerating, but judge that for yourself.

Yeomans is certainly aware that there is some return of C02 back into the air in decomposition, and clearly states so. It is the net difference in the cycle that makes his thesis a reality. He points out that the molecular weight of C02 is 44, but the molecular weight of humic acids, for example can be hundreds of times that, in fact the largest of organic compounds extant. Photosynthesis provides the energy to separate the C and the oxygen, and this and all the other complex cycles together leave tons upon tons of carbon in fertile soil that are not there or would never have been there, otherwise. It is the past and even present agricultural practices that have put this C back into the air, ... even more so, he calculates than all the automobiles that ever ran. These are surprising claims, but it is the facts, figures and measurements that count, not our surprise or misconceptions. If they are wrong, I for one am interested in hearing it, but not guesses about what he is saying. I will further research where from the figures you give are derived and try to find Yeomans' reference. Was it it from a summary page?

What we are addressing here is exactly how the high levels of Carbon once extant in the atmosphere of the earth were decreased to life allowing and sustaining levels, and exactly how the oil and coal came about in the first place. No one familiar with the process denies this. It is an interesting thought, I think, that we have inadvertently again created a vast bank of washed out, sterilized soil which can again recapture this C. I think the math and science is indeed pretty straight forward, and the resistance to these conclusions quite interesting in itself, particularly from persons such as yourself.

In Yeomans' land use methods, a most important principle is to not invert the soil exposing all the microscopic processes and materials to the surface elements, or introducing fosil products that break down the humic acid and release the chelated minerals in such quantities and speed the living life forms cannot handle. Makes perfect sense to me. Some of this is also now a vital part of the 'new' agriculture that seemed so radical even in the earlier years of my life. I remember reading Faulkner's Plowman's Folly in my early twenties, and being deeply affected. I remember discussing this with surrounding farmers and their utter scoffing at the suggestion that plowing was destroying their soil, not building it up. Some theoreticians or professor sitting at a desk, they said. Honestly, Gene, I suspect the same dynamic to be occurring here. There probably isn't much point in continuing this thread with made-up minds unwilling to even read the figures from those who continue to change the course of agriculture, and offer some hope that what is headed for us can be slowed and diverted. This is no Rodale Press publication, by the way, Bill.
We may have a different sense of the seriousness of what we are faced with, since you apparently do not entertain the notion that one very possible outcome is that there will not even be further evolution of human life on earth, or underestimate the importance now of human will and choice in using the knowledge we do have. There is no direction 'out there', but I do think that human beings themselves, being now a very influential factor in 'Gaia' or nature, and in this regard is now almost soley determinative of the both the direction and outcome. I think recent observations support the fact that even present population levels could be supported, and that this can decline with more education and well being, not increase. Never the less it is a little less stressful to state how nature will take care of things thinking one is further from the treats than all those whoi will make way for the rest's welfare. Because of the element of uncertainty of human choice, and dreams I have had, I suspect like Lovelock in many ways, that the still open question is already how many or if anyone survives the consequences of choices already made, not how to avert them. Any slow down providing time to prepare certainly will not be lost effort and time. I think what Yeomans and a few others are providing is some, I think, true hope that the efforts are worth it, and not false hopes. There are things to be, and can be done. I think the two factors of further knowledge and human will is now determining the direction of our evolution on earth if there is to be any, according to what we do with what we know and can DO. For me it is not just an issue of fear, but perhaps, respect, seeing and appreciating things as they are, and already occurring. Caricaturization of such concerns as "Fear" is not what we need, I think. Now is the time for some serious deliberation, before panic sets in. Fear can lead to denial and distortion. Concern surely now is not without value.
jerry





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page