Homestead mailing list

[Jerry B <liberty AT kaballero.com>]

I really do want to get to the bottom of these issues. There are very 
few things more important to me.
I may paraphrase these comments and make it clear his comments will be 
published here. I think there is a good chance he will reply.
-------
The more available and tapped by the plants roots,  the more of these 
Carbon ladened substances are deposited in the soil, and more carbon 
deposited and so on.  As long as the elements of sun, water, and air can 
get to the roots. Without a hard-pan layer blocking the forces of 
gravity,  the burrowing of creatures (ie earthworms) and especially the 
channel formation from decaying roots, these substances move further 
downwards.  all this played a part also in depositing carbon under the 
oceans and land in the form of oil and coal.

Rather ironically, given present attention, the soil under virgin 
forests and jungles is relatively devoid of this action, hence carbon.  
Tree roots may last for long periods of time, unlike grasses, without 
decay, and are in the main, run quite shallow. It can take thousand of 
years to get past the solid substratum formed under forests and jungles 
... thanks Allen.  I was not sufficiently aware of that fact. 

jerry b
------------------------
Gene GeRue wrote:
> On Jan 31, 2008, at 9:59 AM, Don Bowen KI6DIU wrote:
>
>   
> And that brings us to why I am skeptical about the carbon  
> sequestration premise. The carbon gets into the soil through the  
> plants. It gets down to the roots. But the next crop or the next crop  
> after will be eating the nutrients the microorganisms produce when  
> they are eating those roots. Why should the carbon stay down there?