Terra Preta

[synergy]

Oh my goodness ! We can likely not even imagine the reprecussions to global air and water currents possibly being altered, phytoplankton die off , water levels rising and reprecussions all the way up the food chain. It is simplistic to think we will simply enjoy a warmer climate. Change is a dynamic already in play and it may hold some nasty surprises.

I am absolutely out of my realm gardening but i am trying to build my soils and symbiotic relationships on the farm, increase biodiversity here and optimize food production and energy conservation and alternatives with whatever scant resources i can. I am wondering about using salvaged mirrors and reflective surfaces to aid in growing things to extend seasons and increase yields but it always seems optimizing the soil is fundamental.

[erich]

Think of sugar as liquid carbon, made by plants & sun, mostly for symbiotic fungi , to allow more root development and ultimately a fraction of carbohydrates for us. The liquid C sugar flows down the fungal matrix as nutrients flow back from the bacterial power houses slicing & dicsing minerals & nutrients from soils.

Siliver Seed;
I believe that wee-beastie bioturbation of TP accounts for it's high "re-generation" rate. Worms eat & bring it up to mix with new forest litter and all be it is more dilute TP , and the shards don't come back up, but mineral complexes of clay particles could.
The Landscapers who mine it have a fallow protocol they claim allows sustainable production.

My main focus of my advocacy this month;
This month Michael Pollan has made several request for research on conservation Ag & biochar for building soil C, for a talk at the Climate4 Conference at UC Davis

Reviewed Paul Taylor's Book, "The Biochar Revolution" comment #30,
scienceforums.com/topic/10428-tp-humor-poems-prose-wit/page__st__15

At this science forum you can also follow the complete history of my char research.
Just click my name

check out comment #16 for your X-Mas cards this year which I'll paste below (needs an update)

Thanks for your interest
Hope there's Char in your stockings,
Erich


A Visit From Saint Sustainability

'Tis the night before Christmas
and all through the soils
many creatures are stirring
to lessen our toils.

With Vilsack in our stockings and Salazar in our caps,
We can all settle in for a short Christmas nap...

For planting comes early
and we need time enough
for our charcoal to settle
in microbes and duff

Kyoto will be calling
for carbon to the earth
which will leave us all smiling
full of great mirth

Then from the compost
there came such a clatter
I arouse with my spade fork
to organic matter!

The wee-beasties were popping
in asexual love
the hyphae were shedding
Glomalin gloves
the nematodes writhing
in a holiday feast
a cornucopia for all
from mighty to least

So all the pyrolysis
should scale up, but quick!
to make the Earth jolly
just like Saint Nick!



Thanks to all of you for this important work
Erich

[mjc]

Dec 15, 2010 2:18:00 GMT -5 erich said:

I believe that wee-beastie bioturbation of TP accounts for it's high "re-generation" rate. Worms eat & bring it up to mix with new forest litter and all be it is more dilute TP , and the shards don't come back up, but mineral complexes of clay particles could.
The Landscapers who mine it have a fallow protocol they claim allows sustainable production.

The problem with that being the only thing occurring is the need for massive amounts of new material being added annually. Let's say that 10 cm of 'fresh material' will, in the process of composting/decaying, compress down to 1 cm of material, in a year. That means you need to be adding around 30 cm of new material, per year to get that 60cm depth in 20 yrs.

[mnjrutherford]

Well, I've got to go back and re-read some of the replys over the past couple days. I haven't had much computer time. I did scan the testing issue though and basically it seems that you really can't test? Did I understand that correctly?

If so, then surely I should be able to test for at least the basic components and get an idea of where we are at from those results right? I get free soil testing from the state, it's used as a way for the ag dept to advise what sorts of fertilizer a person "should" use for whatever crop he's planning to plant in the coming season. But, it does give you a breakdown of the basic nutrients, NPK etc...

But, if I do that, it would be useful to have some sort of comparison metric available. Is there something like that on the web?

[Joseph Lofthouse]

There are lots of tests that can be easily done...

A test for elements.
Normal soil tests to differentiate humus/clay/silt/rocks.
Normal soil tests for NKP etc...
Total ash.
pH
cation exchange
etc...

I don't know how to interpret what they mean though, other than their meaning in normal field soil.

[grunt]

mjc: I don't think they are saying that the soil level is increased by 40 cm in 20 years, but that the soil that is there is "converted" to TP. In essence, what you have is a slow pit mine.

[mjc]

Dec 15, 2010 18:20:29 GMT -5 grunt said:

mjc: I don't think they are saying that the soil level is increased by 40 cm in 20 years, but that the soil that is there is "converted" to TP. In essence, what you have is a slow pit mine.

Yeah, but if it is just the worms and stuff moving the organic matter down into the soil to 'convert' it, what I said still stands. There's more going on than just a simple accumulation of more organic matter, from what the surrounding forest drops on the patch.

The complex interaction of the living parts of TP and the new organic matter result in more TP being made. It's almost as if the existing TP is acting as a matrix of sorts for the new stuff to grow on.

[nuts]

I did a few ourst of reading on some of erichs links and on some google search results.
By far the most articles are about charcoal production for agriculture in relation to carbon sequestration.Few articles about agricultural consequences,very few about microbial development in biochar-amended soil.

About carbon sequestration,
burning wood to charcoal doesn't contribute to reducing co2 emmission.
why not?Because charcoal is a widely used combustible,And if there is less charcoal,because you put it in the soil people need more of some kind of other fuell
Pumping back fuel into the soil(old mines or so) would have the same effect : none.
The only way to reduce co2 emmission is burning less fuels and less wood.
In general we should rather diminuish human pressure on forests to allow better regeneration.Well, if the global growth of wood exceeds human needs eventually charcoal could be effective in carbon sequestration.
By the way, the hilarious project of carbon credits which attract the businessmen like shit attracts flies I better leave aside.

On the other hand biocharring organic waste that otherwise would be composted (on heaps or directly in the field) like (hu-)manure, straw,leaves and twigs will result in some overall carbon sequestration.
And that's because natural decomposition breaks down organic matter nearly completely(although mostly some humus will remain) and biochar will fix up to one half of the carbon contained in the organic matter for centuries.

But there is one problem,the biochar won't feed the soil organisms like compost do.
To explain this I propose a simple SCIENTIFIC experiment:
1)you buy two fishes
2)one you biochar by puting it in the oven at 200C or higher two hours or so,normally the
fish should be black now.Better open the windows,except if you're really serious about
carbon sequestration.
you burrie both fish in the garden each one beside a different tomatoe plant
3)after one or two months you observe the situation.

I expect the tomatoe with the fresh fish to have grown better because the fast decomposition of the fresh fish witl make a lot of nutrients available
You won't find back anything of the fresh fish but because of the increased microbial activity
structure will be improved but no carbon sequestration.
The biocharred fish,you will find it back,maybe all,there is carbon sequestration,but not the spectacular effects of the fresh fish.



So,biocharring and composting is kind of concurrent demand of organic matter,and biocharring everything is most likely not a real option for sustainable agriculture.I think expecting biochar as THE solution for soil fertility is not realistic.

reignofterroir.com/2009/03/05/peter-schmidt-on-terroir-biodiversity-and-biochar/

That doesn't mean that biochar isn't interesting.
Personally I'm interested in the process of biocharring and would like to develop ultra low temp combustion with uncomplete carbonisation of the organic matter(leaving more food for the microorganisms) with less loss of nitrogen(NH4) and other volatile substances,without industrial incubators.
My special interest is to incomporating clay in the biochar for carbon-clay complexes and maybe for better capture of substances.

www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?WO=2010129988&IA=AU2010000534&DISPLAY=DESC
www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=10&sqi=2&ved=0CFsQFjAJ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.biochar-international.org%2Fimages%2FJoseph_IBI_poster_PM.pdf&rct=j&q=biochar%20clay%20complex&ei=HCYKTZqvD8HoOYScuI0G&usg=AFQjCNFdoAd1Xqi--Mp14c1EpmmwrfiAgQ&cad=rja

[silverseeds]

It all depends on the variables nuts. First that is not the only aspect of sequestering carbon, with biochar/ and especially TP. you actually end up over long periods with more carbon then the biochar alone. Photosynthesis is still the process, and the biochar the anchor that keep it there, but you do get a net increase. At least according to many sources.

Even ignoring that though, in my case my soil is nearly dead. Little to no microbial activity. Little to no organic matter. Ive added 6-8 inches of manures and composts to some areas, 3 years running and its barely noticeable I did a thing.

The biochar offers a way I can KEEP a solid web of microbial life in my soil. because I can keep it deep enough that it stays damp. In the places I added NO organic matter and charged charcoal alone I can actually push my finger into the soil after a year. in areas I amended AND put in charcoal, the soil is actually alive, and is gaining tilth. My compost pile as well, was dramatically more alive this year. a new pile in a new spot.

Then you have the sustainability of creating the charcoal. For now that Im just a gardener, Ive got 1/4 acre on the edge of town and 5 acres outside of town. My land is wooded, and NEEDs thinned. the area used to have a natural cycle of slow burning fires. Various things humans did altered this. some tell me at this point people should just let it revert to the fires, BUT the forest has grown in WAY thicker, and now the fires are much much hotter and often wipe out entire areas, instead of merely thinning the forest. The higher density of trees keeps all the trees sickly and leaves them open to attack from insects. To go off topic a bit, some apparently have been convinced this is related to climate change. It was .7 degree warmer globally so the beetles survive winter better. Im not sure where this thought came from, but the mechanisms making the trees weaker is well known. also elevations vary temps many many degrees here, and if simply being warmer was enough, the trees in areas 10-20 degrees warmer would be the forests being decimated here, but elevation clearly is not a factor as its happening on mountain tops and in valleys.

So..... I need to thin my trees on 5 acres, I will have much more then enough charcoal for my gardens as I do. Im going to take more then mandatory though, and plant many fruit and nut trees. which of course need pruned. Also Im planting fast grow trees I can sustainably harvest material for making biochar.

in a few years I will be buying 20 acres.(I will add to it over time) My set up is going to use an orchard as a backbone, with other planting mixed in. I will also be planting perhaps 20 percent maybe even half with trees specifically for the biochar i can make from them. Honey locust appears my best bet. Its fast growing even here, and once well established can take major thinning, and continue to thrive. so I will have a constant source of materials to char, as I continue to expand my orchards.

yes this is a long term view, most I tell it to scoff. ive seen first hand though what charcoal offers my soil. A constant source of it, I can manage myself, as I expand would be invaluable. I wouldnt call it THE answer, but its an integral part. Im working on perfecting and breeding for dryland farming systems in a semi arid region. Relying on irrigation will devastate this areas water tables should people ever get back to growing food here. It would be much harder without th benefits of the charcoal. so in my case it is worthwhile to purposely grow things with the intent of charcoalizing them.

In some wetter more fertile spot, where land prices and taxes are much higher, and the webs of life in the soil actually persist well enough on their own, this might be a silly thing to do, but in my conditions, I feel it is a very worthwhile pursuit. the stuff lasts thousands of year in the soil, so once I do it for each growing area, its done. Few would question me if i said I was doing it for fire wood, which is used a single time. The charcoal will benefit my great great great grandkids and beyond should they retain my lands.....

There is also a TON of scrap wood each year that the forest service clears from specific spots. the small stuff goes unclaimed every single year, and it is simply burned on the spot. Im going to start claiming this in future years as well.....

[nuts]

Silverseed,
that carbonsequestration thing highly irritates me.

but I'm highly interested in usefull agronomical application.

I'm in a similar situation as you,started my garden a few years ago on a sterile,stony red clay
And after a few years of mulching and manure application I have at least a few centimeters up to 10cm good soil,not black,but with a good structure.Roots are growing deeper and the structure is growing deeper in the soil.
My question is would I have the same result if I had biocharred all the stuff I brought in.

Lots of food for the worms and microorganisms would have burned.....
charcoal is maybe an interesting substrate but imo it doesn't feed the soil(worms and other soilorganisms)

[spacecase0]

I thought the trick was to biochar some of what you mix in to the dirt, and leave some to compost the regular way
that way the bugs have a better environment and something to eat,
just using one direction or the other seems less than ideal

[silverseeds]

Dec 16, 2010 17:51:06 GMT -5 @nuts said:

Silverseed,
that carbonsequestration thing highly irritates me.

but I'm highly interested in usefull agronomical application.

I'm in a similar situation as you,started my garden a few years ago on a sterile,stony red clay
And after a few years of mulching and manure application I have at least a few centimeters up to 10cm good soil,not black,but with a good structure.Roots are growing deeper and the structure is growing deeper in the soil.
My question is would I have the same result if I had biocharred all the stuff I brought in.

Lots of food for the worms and microorganisms would have burned.....
charcoal is maybe an interesting substrate but imo it doesn't feed the soil(worms and other soilorganisms)

Well if it is either or, then doing what your doing would likely be better, atleast until you build up your soil. As spacecase said though, I think both is ideal. For the reasons he said and others. I didnt mention it, but Im doing many things specifically to build up organic matter as well. Im going heavy on both avenues of this at first, and will scale back, as I get my soil more fertile. by that time I should know precisely which fruits and nuts are most worth my efforts of using most of.

[grunt]

Actually, the charcoal is not there to feed the micro-organisms, but to hold onto nutrients that would otherwise leach out or burn out of the soil, so it remains available for the microbial life. It helps hold water and improves the tilth a bit too. The volatile aromatic elements that are still left in "properly" formed charcoal do provide some food, but I would be willing to bet that ANY charcoal, whether "properly" made or not, will provide much the same result, once charged with nutrients (pissed on properly, as you are supposed to do with biochar).

[silverseeds]

Dec 16, 2010 23:38:59 GMT -5 grunt said:

Actually, the charcoal is not there to feed the micro-organisms, but to hold onto nutrients that would otherwise leach out or burn out of the soil, so it remains available for the microbial life. It helps hold water and improves the tilth a bit too. The volatile aromatic elements that are still left in "properly" formed charcoal do provide some food, but I would be willing to bet that ANY charcoal, whether "properly" made or not, will provide much the same result, once charged with nutrients (pissed on properly, as you are supposed to do with biochar).

I can attest to poorly made charcoal still doing its trick, as all I had last year was stuff i pulled from hot fires, so about the lowest quality. It was only a week ago or so, I started making it right.

your right the charcoal doesnt feed the micro organisms, but
it does provide a place for them to live.

[erich]

Hi HomeGrown,
comments inserted
Nuts said;

very few about microbial development in biochar-amended soil.

Most soil biology work is by Japan,have been at it decades:
Japan Biochar Association ;
www.geocities.jp/yasizato/pioneer.htm

About carbon sequestration,
burning wood to charcoal doesn't contribute to reducing co2 emmission.

The ONLY carbon burnt are the gas & oils.

why not?Because charcoal is a widely used combustible,And if there is less charcoal,because you put it in the soil people need more of some kind of other fuell

Gasifier & pyrolitic cook stoves are 40% more efficient , can use other biomass fuels than wood, and burn so clean that WorldStove just got approved for indoor use! The energy penalty of not burning the char is balanced by the efficiency in burning the gases & oils.


The only way to reduce co2 emmission is burning less fuels and less wood.

Hydro-Thermal Carbonization &
Modern pyrolysis reactors are closed loop with no significant GHG emissions, only the CO2 from combustion of Syn-Gas & Bio-Oil.
Again the basic LCA is;
Every 1 ton of Biomass yields 1/3 ton Charcoal for soil Sequestration (= to 1 Ton CO2e) + Bio-Gas & Bio-oil fuels = to 1MWh exported electricity, so is a totally virtuous, carbon negative energy cycle.


Carbon Farming will commence in earnest once the Soil Carbon
Bank is established

Biochar systems for Biofuels and soil carbon sequestration are so basically conservative in nature it is a shame that republicans have not seized it as a central environmental policy plank as the conservatives in Australia have with their ; "Carbon sequestration without Taxes".

I agree with our republicans; Carbon is an assets, but miss allocated in the air, in soil it provides significant yields and weather you want them or not, Climate dividends.

For Mr.Nuts, I'll parse it this way;
NPK+C (C= Char/Compost)
A balanced soil nutrient ration for the livestock under your feet.
Measured annual Carbon enrichment, receipts ready for a Soil Carbon Bank.
SOC dividends compounded by recalcitrant Glomalin %, payments annually in productivity and soil particle aggregation. tilth and disease resistance.

Given our election, the bipartisan potential that soil-C solutions hold to get climate legislation moving is more important than ever.

A short summary of all the efforts I know of, voluntary markets , methodologies, sponsors & activities around Soil-C;
by Michael J. Coren
Betting on the Farm: Can Soil Carbon Cut Emissions and Improve the World's Farmlands?
Soil carbon credits offer the promise of better land management across millions of hectares of farmland, and they are a central focus of the International Conference on Agriculture, Food Security and Climate Change taking place this week in the Hague. But how does it work, and can carbon markets make it a reality?
www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/pages/dynamic/article.page.php?page_id=7580§ion=news_articles&eod=1


Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Potential of Agricultural Land Management in the United States: A Synthesis of the Literature
This document is a companion report to the upcoming T-AGG reports. It is an extensive scientific literature review providing a side-by-side comparison of the biophysical greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation potential of more than 40 agricultural land management activities in the United States. nicholasinstitute.duke.edu/ecosystem/land/TAGGDLitRev


Large Scale Scenarios;

Conservation Agricultural............ (+ Biochar = 100% CO2e Emissions )
"In general, soil carbon sequestration during the first decade of adoption of best conservation agricultural practices is 1.8 tons CO2 per hectare per year. On 5 billion hectares of agricultural land, this could represent one-third of the current annual global emission of CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels (i.e., 27 Pg CO2 per year)."
www.fao.org/ag/ca/doc/CA_SSC_Overview.pdf

Add just 1 Ton more of char/Ha (800lb/Ac) and you cover 100% Current Annual Fossil CO2 Emissions.


"Priority One"
by Allan J. Yeomans is a seminal work on top soil and how it can sequester enormous amounts of carbon. He parses all the numbers for you in chapter 5;
SOIL FORMATION CAN HALT GLOBAL WARMING
www.yeomansplow.com.au/docs/PRIORITY-ONE-Chapter5.pdf
Free download;
www.yeomansplow.com.au/priority-one.htm


Small Scale,
Hillary Makes a big Announcement with The Global Stove Initiative;
State Dept. Release;
100 million clean-burning stoves in kitchens around the world.
www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2010/09/147494.htm

A significant aspect of low cost, Biomass cook stoves that produce Biochar is removal of BC aerosols and no respiratory disease emissions. At Scale, replacing "Three Stone" stoves the health benefits would equal eradication of Malaria & Aids combined.
The Biochar Fund has doubled subsistence farmer's incomes;
Exceptional results from biochar experiment in Cameroon
The broad smiles of 1500 subsistence farmers say it all
( that , and the size of the Biochar corn root balls )
biocharfund.org/

First-Ever African Soil-Carbon Deal Signed at Hague Investment Fair
November 5, 2010 by Admin
THE HAGUE | Netherlands | Small-holder farmers in Kenya are changing their farming practices and earning carbon credits. This is a result of the first soil carbon project approved in Africa, which seeks to improve food security, help address climate change, and improve the lives and livelihoods of rural dwellers who today live in poverty.
www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/pages/dynamic/article.page.php?page_id=7813§ion=news_articles&eod=1

A Method for Assessing Carbon Stocks, Carbon Sequestration, and Greenhouse-Gas Fluxes in Ecosystems of the United States Under Present Conditions and Future Scenarios
pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5233/


In the "Annals of the Association of American Geographers",
I'm glad this work by Dr. Dull is getting attention. Together with Dr. William Woods and citing Bill Ruddiman's work, the pieces of anthropogenic climate change fall into place.

The Columbian Encounter and the Little Ice Age: Abrupt Land Use Change, Fire, and Greenhouse Forcing

The implications are really important. Dull, et al, argue that the re-growth of Neotropical forests following the Columbian encounter led to terrestrial biospheric carbon sequestration on the order of 2 to 5 GtC, thereby contributing to the well-documented decrease in atmospheric C recorded in Antarctic ice cores from about 1500 through 1750. While the paper does not extend to the medieval maximum, from charcoal in lake bed studies it documents increased biomass burning and deforestation during agricultural and population expansion in the Neotropics from 2500 to 500 years BP, which would correspond with atmospheric carbon loading and global warming 1100 to 650 years BP.
www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all?content=10.1080/00045608.2010.502432

The charcoal & pollen evidence is hard to ignore.


Erich