Homestead mailing list

[Jerry B <liberty AT kaballero.com>]

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