next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_001F_01CE3868.67B6F1C0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Mary & All, Apr 12, 2013
Well, for soils to contain 75 % of the carbon pool on land I think =
one would have to include all of the peat, permafrost and muck deposits =
within this inflated definition of soil and if the figure is valid at =
all I suspect this summation of all non-mineral terrestrial carbon was =
the basis for it. But if you define soil in the usual sense as being =
that thin layer of earth which supports vascular plant life then the =
figure would be smaller.
I can obtain a first approximation from my Forest Soils text (Lutz & =
Chandler 1946) in which (p. 180) typical ranges of total OM of two mor =
and two mull soils is given as 271-081 to 554,450 and 222,627 to 515,231 =
for mor and mull respectively. These totals would include unincorporated =
OM (mostly litter) which 'typically' range from 30,000-60,000 lb/acre.=20
Combining mor & mull and rounding the range of total OM would yield =
250,000 to 500,000 lb/acre. Because 1 lb/acre=3D 1.12 kg/ha these units =
are interchangeable for a rough estimate but OM must be converted to =
carbon so why not use the 1.12 factor as well ? Using OMx0.58 =3D =
carbon, the range for carbon then becomes
(250,000 to 500,000) X 0 58 X 1,12 =3D 162,400 to 324,800 kg =
carbon/ha. And this conveniently rounds to 16 to 32 kg C/m^2. It will be =
a skinny forest that has only 5.3-10.7 kg C/m^2.
Figure 1.5 in Jenny (The Soil Resource) gives a direct breakdown in =
kg C for one site; Vert 1527, Roots 456, forest floor 256 and mineral =
soil 998 for a 117 m^2 sample area. This leads to 31% C in mineral soil, =
39% in FF+ MS and 17 kg C/m^2 of Vert + roots.=20
.=20
For the purposes of worrying about soil organic matter lost due to =
clear cutting only the surface layers would normally count i.e. litter =
and organic layer. These upper layers are vulnerable because they are =
exposed to direct sunlight which leads locally to high temperatures.=20
Consequently one should retain shade if possible and two ways come =
to mind; removal of no more than 1/3 of the crown area at any one time =
or if this is not feasible because e.g. 3/4 of the trees are dead, =
establishment of a (gasp) catch crop. Excessive loss of both nitrogen =
and carbon from clear cuts might be largely avoided, I think, by timely =
establishment of a catch crop of say annual ryegrass, winter wheat, =
fireweed and/or goldenrod; whatever fits the site, time of cut....=20
But, I hasten to add (after many paragraphs), I am not a fan of =
clear cuts or industrial scale forestry. In addition, clear cuts, if =
sufficiently small, and industrial forestry, if carried out with care, =
need not lead to environmental degradation. But most importantly, use of =
wood as an energy source need not involve either.=20
It is all a matter of choices and political will. Wood has the =
potential to be a nearly carbon neutral source of energy, especially if =
compared to coal, oil or natural gas. Why not find acceptable ways to =
exploit this potential and leave more fossil fuel undisturbed ?
The power of political will is nicely illustrated on pp. 46-47 of =
the March 2013 National Geographic; fracked petrochemical wells in the =
Baaken Shale Formation as thick as hair on a dog's back. This looks =
suspiciously like tax write-offs at work. Otherwise how can one account =
for such a frenzy of development ? Some decades ago in Canada, any =
profitable Petrochemical company, as I recall, could get about $1,50 in =
tax relief for every dollar spent on exploration and development. I =
wonder what it is now in the USA (but not enough to read confusing =
income tax regulations, especially in mid-April) ?
In Switzerland, alpine farmers are paid a modest wage for taking =
care of forests that protect down-slope settlements from avalanches. Why =
not use tax dollars here to enable extraction of wood for energy, by ox =
team and elbow grease, and therby defend our woodlands, to some extent, =
from the ravages of climate change ?
Just one further thought before I leave this. Only about 30% (35 ?) =
of the energy from combustion of any fuel can be converted to =
electricity so there is substantial waste heat. To make the most of any =
fuel source, the power plants should ideally be near or in =
residential/commercial areas so the waste heat can be used for =
space/water heating, heating greenhouses or stored underground for later =
use.=20
=20
Yt, Dave Webster, Kentville
=20
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Mary Macaulay=20
To: Nature Nova Scotia=20
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 1:16 PM
Subject: RE: [NatureNS] Forest Biomass burning environmental lunacy
The Ecological Society of America is where I got the stat Dousek:
=20
Here is the quote and the link:
=20
Carbon is found in all living organisms and is the major building =
block for life on Earth. Carbon exists in many forms, predominately as =
plant biomass, soil organic matter, and as the gas carbon dioxide =
(CO2)in the atmosphere and dissolved in seawater. Carbon sequestration =
is the longterm
storage of carbon in oceans, soils, vegetation (especially forests), =
and geologic formations. Although oceans store most of the Earth=92s =
carbon, soils contain approximately 75% of the carbon pool on land =97 =
three times more than the amount stored in living plants and animals. =
Therefore, soils play a major role in maintaining a balanced global =
carbon cycle.
=20
=
http://www.esa.org/education_diversity/pdfDocs/carbonsequestrationinsoils=
.pdf
=20
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 09:50:55 -0300
From: soudekd@ns.sympatico.ca
To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca
Subject: Re: [NatureNS] Forest Biomass burning environmental lunacy
Mary,=20
just curious about that suspiciously round 75 % figure. Is that =
true for all vegetation types? Here in N.S. the soil is incredibly thin. =
What is the source of the 75 % figure? With thanks,=20
Dusan Soudek=20
=20
---------- Original Message ----------=20
From: Mary Macaulay <marymacaulay@hotmail.com>=20
To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca=20
Date: April 11, 2013 at 7:56 AM=20
Subject: [NatureNS] Forest Biomass burning environmental lunacy=20
75% of the carbon stored on land is in the soil Dave. The richest =
deepest soils are under an old growth forest. A healthy forest canopy =
continues to feed that soil and protects it from erosion and oxidation. =
So .. the arguments against Industrial forestry are clear cut...=20
Mary Macaulay, P.Eng.=20
Executive Director=20
Atlantic Concrete Association=20
www.atlanticconcrete.ca=20
Office: 902-443-4456=20
Cell: 902-489-2000=20
Fax: 902-404-8074=20
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.3272 / Virus Database: 3162/6236 - Release Date: =
04/10/13
------=_NextPart_000_001F_01CE3868.67B6F1C0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dwindows-1252" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<STYLE>.hmmessage P {
PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: =
0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px
}
BODY.hmmessage {
FONT-FAMILY: Calibri; FONT-SIZE: 12pt
}
</STYLE>
<META name=3DGENERATOR content=3D"MSHTML 8.00.6001.19412"></HEAD>
<BODY class=3Dhmmessage bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2 face=3DArial>Hi Mary & All, =20
=
=20
Apr 12, 2013</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2 face=3DArial> Well, for soils to=20
contain 75 % of the carbon pool on land I think one would have to =
include=20
all of the peat, permafrost and muck deposits within this =
inflated=20
definition of soil and if the figure is valid at all I suspect this =
summation of=20
all non-mineral terrestrial carbon was the basis for it. But if you =
define=20
soil in the usual sense as being that thin layer of =
earth which=20
supports vascular plant life then the figure would be=20
smaller.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2 face=3DArial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2 face=3DArial> I can obtain a =
first=20
approximation from my Forest Soils text (Lutz & Chandler 1946) in =
which (p.=20
180) typical ranges of total OM of two mor and two mull soils is =
given as=20
271-081 to 554,450 and 222,627 to 515,231 for mor and mull respectively. =
These=20
totals would include unincorporated OM (mostly litter) which 'typically' =
range=20
from 30,000-60,000 lb/acre. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2 face=3DArial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2 face=3DArial> Combining mor & =
mull and=20
rounding the range of total OM would yield 250,000 to 500,000 =
lb/acre.=20
Because 1 lb/acre=3D 1.12 kg/ha these units are interchangeable for a =
rough=20
estimate but OM must be converted to carbon so why not use the 1.12 =
factor as=20
well ? Using OMx0.58 =3D carbon, the range for carbon then=20
becomes</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2 face=3DArial>(250,000 to 500,000) =
X 0 58 X=20
1,12 =3D 162,400 to 324,800 kg carbon/ha. And this =
conveniently rounds=20
to 16 to 32 kg C/m^2. It will be a skinny forest that has only 5.3-10.7 =
kg=20
C/m^2.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2 face=3DArial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2 face=3DArial> Figure =
1.5 in Jenny=20
(The Soil Resource) gives a direct breakdown in kg C for one site; Vert =
1527,=20
Roots 456, forest floor 256 and mineral soil 998 for a 117 m^2 sample =
area. This=20
leads to 31% C in mineral soil, 39% in FF+ MS and 17 kg C/m^2 of =
Vert +=20
roots. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2 face=3DArial> . </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2 face=3DArial> For the purposes of =
worrying=20
about soil organic matter lost due to clear cutting only the surface =
layers=20
would normally count i.e. litter and organic layer. These upper layers=20
are vulnerable because they are exposed to =
direct sunlight=20
which leads locally to high temperatures. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2 face=3DArial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2 face=3DArial> Consequently one =
should retain=20
shade if possible and two ways come to mind; removal of no more than 1/3 =
of the=20
crown area at any one time or if this is not feasible because e.g. 3/4 =
of the=20
trees are dead, establishment of a (gasp) catch crop. Excessive loss of =
both=20
nitrogen and carbon from clear cuts might be largely avoided, I =
think, by=20
timely establishment of a catch crop of say annual ryegrass, winter =
wheat,=20
fireweed and/or goldenrod; whatever fits the site, time of cut.... =
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2 face=3DArial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2 face=3DArial> But, I hasten to add =
(after many=20
paragraphs), I am not a fan of clear cuts or industrial scale =
forestry. In=20
addition, clear cuts, if sufficiently small, and industrial forestry, if =
carried=20
out with care, need not lead to environmental degradation. But most =
importantly,=20
use of wood as an energy source need not involve either. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2 face=3DArial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2 face=3DArial> It is all a matter =
of choices=20
and political will. Wood has the potential to be a nearly carbon neutral =
source=20
of energy, especially if compared to coal, oil or natural gas. Why not =
find=20
acceptable ways to exploit this potential and leave more fossil fuel =
undisturbed=20
?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2 face=3DArial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2 face=3DArial> The power =
of=20
political will is nicely illustrated on pp. 46-47 of the March 2013 =
National=20
Geographic; fracked petrochemical wells in the Baaken Shale Formation as =
thick=20
as hair on a dog's back. This looks suspiciously like tax =
write-offs=20
at work. Otherwise how can one account for such a frenzy of development=20
? Some decades ago in Canada, any profitable Petrochemical company, =
as I=20
recall, could get about $1,50 in tax relief for every dollar spent on=20
exploration and development. I wonder what it is now in the USA (but not =
enough=20
to read confusing income tax regulations, especially in mid-April)=20
?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2 face=3DArial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2 face=3DArial> In Switzerland, =
alpine farmers=20
are paid a modest wage for taking care of forests that protect =
down-slope settlements from avalanches. Why not use tax dollars here to =
enable=20
extraction of wood for energy, by ox team and elbow grease, and therby =
defend=20
our woodlands, to some extent, from the ravages of climate change=20
?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2 face=3DArial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2 face=3DArial> Just one further =
thought before=20
I leave this. Only about 30% (35 ?) of the energy from combustion of any =
fuel=20
can be converted to electricity so there is substantial waste heat. To =
make the=20
most of any fuel source, the power plants should ideally be near or =
in=20
residential/commercial areas so the waste heat can be used for =
space/water=20
heating, heating greenhouses or stored underground for later use. =
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2 face=3DArial> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2 face=3DArial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2 face=3DArial> Yt, Dave Webster,=20
Kentville</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2 face=3DArial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2 face=3DArial> </FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; =
PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"=20
dir=3Dltr>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV=20
style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: =
black"><B>From:</B>=20
<A title=3Dmarymacaulay@hotmail.com =
href=3D"mailto:marymacaulay@hotmail.com">Mary=20
Macaulay</A> </DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A =
title=3Dnaturens@chebucto.ns.ca=20
href=3D"mailto:naturens@chebucto.ns.ca">Nature Nova Scotia</A> </DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, April 11, 2013 =
1:16=20
PM</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> RE: [NatureNS] Forest =
Biomass=20
burning environmental lunacy</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2 face=3DArial></FONT><FONT size=3D2 =
face=3DArial></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr>The Ecological Society of America is where I got the =
stat=20
Dousek:<BR> <BR>Here is the quote and the =
link:<BR> <BR><FONT size=3D3=20
face=3DArial><FONT size=3D3 face=3DArial>
<P align=3Dleft>Carbon is found in all living organisms and is the =
major=20
building block for life on Earth. Carbon exists in many forms, =
predominately=20
as plant biomass, soil organic matter, and as the gas carbon dioxide=20
(CO2)</FONT></FONT><FONT size=3D3 face=3DArial><FONT size=3D3 =
face=3DArial>in the=20
atmosphere and dissolved in seawater. </FONT></FONT><B><FONT size=3D3=20
face=3DArial><FONT size=3D3 face=3DArial>Carbon sequestration=20
</FONT></FONT></B><FONT size=3D3 face=3DArial><FONT size=3D3=20
face=3DArial></FONT></FONT><FONT size=3D3 face=3DArial><FONT size=3D3 =
face=3DArial>is=20
the longterm</FONT></FONT></P><FONT size=3D3 face=3DArial><FONT =
size=3D3=20
face=3DArial>storage of carbon in oceans, soils, vegetation =
(especially=20
forests), and geologic formations. Although oceans store most of the =
Earth=92s=20
carbon, soils contain approximately 75% of the carbon pool on land =97 =
three=20
times more than the amount stored in living plants and animals. =
Therefore,=20
soils play a major role in maintaining a balanced global carbon=20
cycle.<BR></FONT></FONT> <BR><A=20
=
href=3D"http://www.esa.org/education_diversity/pdfDocs/carbonsequestratio=
ninsoils.pdf"=20
=
saprocessedanchor=3D"true">http://www.esa.org/education_diversity/pdfDocs=
/carbonsequestrationinsoils.pdf</A><BR> <BR>
<DIV>
<DIV id=3DSkyDrivePlaceholder></DIV>
<HR id=3DstopSpelling>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 09:50:55 -0300<BR>From: =
soudekd@ns.sympatico.ca<BR>To:=20
naturens@chebucto.ns.ca<BR>Subject: Re: [NatureNS] Forest Biomass =
burning=20
environmental lunacy<BR><BR>
<DIV>Mary, </DIV>
<DIV> just curious about that suspiciously round 75 =
%=20
figure. Is that true for all vegetation types? Here in N.S. =
the soil is=20
incredibly thin. What is the source of the 75 % figure? With =
thanks,=20
</DIV>
<DIV>Dusan Soudek </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><BR>---------- Original Message ---------- <BR>From: Mary =
Macaulay=20
<marymacaulay@hotmail.com> <BR>To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca =
<BR>Date:=20
April 11, 2013 at 7:56 AM </DIV>
<DIV><BR>Subject: [NatureNS] Forest Biomass burning environmental =
lunacy=20
</DIV>
<DIV><BR>75% of the carbon stored on land is in the soil Dave. The =
richest=20
deepest soils are under an old growth forest. A healthy forest canopy=20
continues to feed that soil and protects it from erosion and =
oxidation. So ..=20
the arguments against Industrial forestry are clear cut... =
<BR><BR>Mary=20
Macaulay, P.Eng. <BR>Executive Director <BR>Atlantic Concrete =
Association=20
<BR>www.atlanticconcrete.ca <BR>Office: 902-443-4456 <BR>Cell: =
902-489-2000=20
<BR>Fax: 902-404-8074 </DIV></DIV></DIV><A></A>
<P align=3Dleft avgcert?? color=3D"#000000">No virus found in this=20
message.<BR>Checked by AVG - <A=20
href=3D"http://www.avg.com">www.avg.com</A><BR>Version: 2013.0.3272 / =
Virus=20
Database: 3162/6236 - Release Date: =
04/10/13</P></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_001F_01CE3868.67B6F1C0--
next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects