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