|
|
Post by ottawagardener on Dec 28, 2010 18:14:34 GMT -5
Silverseeds: this is pretty much what I mean by flow. Not merely observing it but also putting our hand in the stream and watching how it changes then working with rather than against the flow. I plan on setting up some ditches and berms as well to change the flow of water in some spots.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverseeds on Dec 28, 2010 20:36:21 GMT -5
Silverseeds: this is pretty much what I mean by flow. Not merely observing it but also putting our hand in the stream and watching how it changes then working with rather than against the flow. I plan on setting up some ditches and berms as well to change the flow of water in some spots. I pretty much figured thats what you meant and jo as well, but she had said the cycle she mentioned takes 1000, years. It sure doesnt have to if we direct it. i believe we can design with this in mind for most crop types to our great advantage. not just us homesteader types, but farming in general. hopefully more and more work on integrating such concepts into working farms. I see great potential in it for my own area, and it likely holds true nearly anywhere. Its a baby science as far as I am concerned, with many angles and possibilities. a prairie or forest is nearly perpetual in its fertility couple simple micro climate utilization into that and its more powerful yet. We do take things off site,(produce) but trees also pull things from deeper. I also think this can give small farmers a great advantage in production per acre and effort, better utilizing a given area and also vs. those organic or otherwise who rely on outside inputs predominantly. |
|
|
|
Post by mnjrutherford on Dec 29, 2010 7:59:42 GMT -5
So, leveling the forest in an already dry or drying area would be a good way to assist desert encroachment. If trees in your area were intentionally eliminated, that would certainly be a direct impact to the system. On the other hand, if they existed at one time, say within the past 100 years, it might make it easier for you to re-establish the system. Is that what you are implying you want to do?
|
|
|
|
Post by silverseeds on Dec 29, 2010 13:29:04 GMT -5
So, leveling the forest in an already dry or drying area would be a good way to assist desert encroachment. If trees in your area were intentionally eliminated, that would certainly be a direct impact to the system. On the other hand, if they existed at one time, say within the past 100 years, it might make it easier for you to re-establish the system. Is that what you are implying you want to do? Im doing many things. yes leveling the forest anywhere, if you leave the land exposed can assist desert encroachment. No actually if trees were leveled 100 years ago it no different then areas naturally leveled 10,000 years ago. Not here anyway. this area still retains patchy forests at high elevations. It used to stearch from utah, nevada, AZ, CO, TX, NM, down into mexico. Small changes building up over time altered soil enough that trees couldnt start themselves in most of these places. Now this forest only exists i patches. Most of these areas STILL support the same trees if I was to plant them myself and water them until they establish, the slightly higher water at higher elevations, and small spots with organic matter built up can do that still at higher elevations. But really it having been a forest 100 years ago seems to matter little even areas leveled at the higher elevations look the same as those at lower elevations here. It takes just as much work to re establish a structure that would support the forest coming back, and saving the one we still have, which humans have sped up its decline in many ways, and the "experts" answer to saving it, is a total fallacy litereally ignoring all variables. Im doing several things, Im building my own homestead. But im also working on conceptualizing both passive and pro active systems of land reclamation, whether to forest or productive prairies for ranch land. The ranchland here is slowly decaying, a few small changes, and it would slowly build itself instead. a few big changes and it could be multiples of what it ever was. Better understanding of soil, and plants, and water etc and how those variables relate in a living evolving system.... can change what we think we know on such things. MANY MANY people working on many aspects of this, but its still a new science in my eyes. SO many variables and different conditions, and goals. In a wetter more fertile area for instance, the focus is different. |
|
|
|
Post by nuts on Dec 29, 2010 15:46:33 GMT -5
I was born on the west coast and remember well the look of a bald mountain that once had on it a magnificent forest. It still makes me cry. Maybe we should create a woodlot management thread? good idea,and I see it's done allready,thanks. Maybe this thread asks for his counterpart:"grasslot management", you will see me pop up in both,one of these days. |
|
|
|
Post by nuts on Dec 29, 2010 18:01:55 GMT -5
Well,there is wood to make charcoal,but I think there is better,specially for those who don't have spare wood,or for those who prefer other purposes for the wood.
I think straw has a few avantages.
1) In many cases it may be cheaper/kg dry weight,than wood,allthough,of course,it depends on many things,local availability,and of course a truckload is cheaper than one kilo for the hamster in a local shop
2)when charred,straw become a very fine dust,And the crushing of the chunks of charcoal doesn't seem easy,even not so easy at all.And even with a good method the particles of crushed charcoal,probably will be big stones,compared to the dust-particules of the charred straw.
I'm thinking about a method for this,with a round bale(around 200 kg,I guess),coming to this:
-make a hole through the center of the bale,with a knife or so,should be doable.
-put it upright,so the hole is vertical and can act as chimney,on some stones or pieces of wood,so that it doesn't touch the ground,allowing for lighting the fire underneath,later on.
-cover it with dirt(clay from a pit for exemple),kind of plastering it with clay,or maybe better,with a clay/straw mud.
-close the space between the bale and the ground so that there is only one opening,communicating with the centerhole of the bale,for introducing the fire and regulating the draft.Keep the centerhole of the bale opened at the top.
-introduce the fire.in the bottom hole,so that the centerhole of the bale is going to act as chimney.The bale must absolutely not be allowed to burn on the outside.
-When it's working,and the chimney is burning inside,start regulate the draft,by reducing the bottom and top hole.In the start some oxygen is needed to make enough heat to make the pyrolyse start
-When the pyrolyse is started,both holes must be closed .
-continue to supervise the process till it's finished(hours,days?)
-prevent holes to occur on the surface,keep clay/straw at hand to cover eventual holes.
hit the surface with a shovel to make the bale collapse when the inside consumes.
-no black smoke should ever escape,except maybe a bit in the start.
In the ideal case all usefull carbon substances should stay in the heap.This go from the charcoaldust,the oils and tars to vinegar and alcohols.
It's just my opinion that the thicker the layer of dirt/clay is,the more substances will be absorbed and maybe it's even good keep the outside wet and cool to condensate even more substances that are forced to go through the'skin'.The clay at the end will contain many substances(and will be black/dark) and can be mixed with the chardust to make up the core of 'terra preta'
Just sucking it from my thumb..
I think I'll ask one of my neighbours for a bale or two,this summer.
-
|
|
|
|
Post by newbiocharland on Feb 2, 2011 16:55:02 GMT -5
Don't believe in what biochar can do? Learn more about the future of agriculture with biochar, from the most complete book about biochar “The Biochar Revolution” www.biochar-books.comLearn how to get terra preta! |
|
|
|
Post by mnjrutherford on Feb 2, 2011 17:24:29 GMT -5
I'm not sure that believing in biochar is the point. Personally, I don't understand why there is any focus on biochar. Literally... I don't understand why biochar is even part of the discussion.
The way I am understanding the TP process is that biochar happens as part of the process system that results in TP. Therefore, if you amend your soil with TP, you amend your soil with biochar as well.
I just don't see the point of creating biochar separate from TP. As I understand the process, (PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong!) you would end up using a lot of fuel and creating more carbon dioxide than the biochar created could sequester.
The only exception to the rule, as I can see it, is the biochar that could be created as a by-product from use of the "World Stove" as mentioned by Erich in page 15 of this thread.
I'm glad you brought this up because to be honest, I've looked at this issue and looked at it and for the life of me I just can't get my brains around it.
|
|
|
|
Post by grunt on Feb 2, 2011 21:17:50 GMT -5
Jo: I think biochar is well worth discussing here, as many of the people who frequent here (BHG) are not situated where they can make a TP pit as you are doing, or might not feel comfortable with it. The biochar gives them the chance to work towards something resembling TP, or at least give them the chance to improve their soil in that direction. It is unlikely that any of us are going to get really close to TP in any event, just looking at the scale of time it must involve, to affect the depth of soil that is shown where they dig pits. That has to have taken many years, if not centuries to achieve.
|
|
|
|
Post by mnjrutherford on Feb 3, 2011 7:54:13 GMT -5
Ok, thanks for that Dan. I really appreciate the response. Please, bear with me as I ask another question? I hope you realize I'm looking to understand something that doesn't make sense to me and I'm sure it's because I'm missing some important piece of the puzzle.
As I understand it, in order to create biochar it is necessary to place the material that will become biochar in a container that must then be "cooked" over a medium heat over a long (I'm not sure how long but I'm thinking I recall something saying 24 to 48 hours) period of time.
You mentioned that not everyone can maintain a TP pit like we are trying to do. Presuming that the reason for not having a TP pit is fire hazard, then how could a person make biochar but not have a TP pit?
I also don't understand how the value of the biochar compensates for the tremendous amount of fuel needed to create it. As I understand it, it takes a much greater amount of fuel (by weight) to maintain the heat over time to change the material to biochar. I'm thinking of a video I saw and the person created a can that he put about 10 lbs of material into. Then he "cooked" the material into 2 or 3 lbs of biochar using 50 lbs (more or less) of fuel.
If that is a legitimate scenario, how would that small amount of biochar sequester more carbon dioxide than was given off in the process of making it?
Can you see where I must be missing something?
On the other hand there are the World Stoves. Presuming they work as claimed, that would be a perfect method for achieving biochar. But how many people here in the states would be interested in acquiring and using it? Outside of some of us here on the forum, I doubt there would be a lot. I DO want to get one.
And last but not least, what is the value of the biochar compared to the TP? As I understand it, the value of the biochar is as a component of TP. How DOES it sequester carbon? What do you do with it after making it that makes it so very useful? Would it actually be more worthwhile to skip the TP and focus only on biochar?
I can't help but feel that there is some glaring gap in my understanding here. I hope these questions make it apparent so someone can hand me a clue I can catch!
|
|
|
|
Post by Joseph Lofthouse on Feb 3, 2011 11:47:22 GMT -5
If that is a legitimate scenario, how would that small amount of biochar sequester more carbon dioxide than was given off in the process of making it? Can you see where I must be missing something? Theoretically if you are only burning plants as fuel, then any amount of charcoal you put into the ground removes CO2 from the air.... (However small the net difference.) If you use a charcoal kiln, and burn the gases from the biochar then a higher percentage of carbon goes into the ground. Around here it can take decades, even centuries for a log to rot and turn back into carbon dioxide, so that has removed CO2 for the long term where if I burn it I release a lot immediately. As far as the difference in weight goes between wood and charcoal, there is a lot of water released when charcoal is made. I'm not convinced that reducing carbon dioxide in the air is a good thing. I would like a warmer world. I would like a world in which my plants grow better because of higher concentrations of carbon dioxide. |
|
|
|
Post by mnjrutherford on Feb 3, 2011 12:53:18 GMT -5
Theoretically if you are only burning plants as fuel, then any amount of charcoal you put into the ground removes CO2 from the air.... I just plain don't understand how putting charcoal in the ground would remove CO2 from the air. What sort of chemical activity goes on? Does it have something to do with solar warming that releases some sort of "net" that captures CO2 molecules? Or is it because the charcoal promotes plant growth and so it's really the plant that "breathes in" the CO2? |
|
|
|
Post by grunt on Feb 3, 2011 13:34:32 GMT -5
Jo: The most efficient methods of making biochar do not use that much fuel to char the material, but use mostly the gasses from the material being charred as fuel. Here's an inefficient example of the method www.holon.se/folke/carbon/simplechar/simplechar.shtml . Do a search on TLUD gassifiers = they use no external fuel to produce the biochar, and the heat produced can be used to cook with = many portable woodburning campstoves are TLUD devices, and produce small amounts of biochar, if you wet them down once the initial burn is done. Your World Stove is a TLUD micro-gasification unit. They are not rocket science = make your own. You can scale it up quite easily if you want to. If you want to increase the charcoal in your soil quickly, it's fairly easy to scale it up for easy charcoal production. I think I put links to some good articles and examples someplace in the early pages of this thread. Putting charcoal in the ground does not pull carbon from the air = it keeps it from going in the air for thousands of years. What we turn to charcoal would end up going into the air much sooner if we didn't use it for biochar. Simple example = instead of leaving the cornstalks in your garden to compost into its basic elements (carbon among them) over a year or two, you turn them into charcoal and mix them into your soil. This lock the carbon in your soil for a much longer time, preventing it from adding to the greenhouse gasses. |
|
|
|
Post by Joseph Lofthouse on Feb 3, 2011 13:49:08 GMT -5
I just plain don't understand how putting charcoal in the ground would remove CO2 from the air. What sort of chemical activity goes on? Does it have something to do with solar warming that releases some sort of "net" that captures CO2 molecules? Or is it because the charcoal promotes plant growth and so it's really the plant that "breathes in" the CO2? CO2 + sunlight ---> Plant tissue growth Plant tissue + fire ---> CO2 + biochar/charcoal (A little less airborne CO2 than we started with) That little less stays in the ground for a very long time. I have a hard time believing that is a more/less valuable reaction than this one: CO2 + sunlight ---> Plant tissue growth Plant tissue + microbes ---> Compost (Very much less airborne CO2 than we started with) Compost + lots of time ---> Methane and CO2 (no more than we started with) In any case, if biochar/charcoal is valuable I would attribute it's value to providing a light airy pocket of something on which microbes can grow and the trap that it provides to keep some nutrients from being washed away. I place no value on regulating the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. |
|
|
|
Post by mnjrutherford on Feb 3, 2011 15:12:03 GMT -5
You guys are terrific. Thank you so much for breaking it down for me like that. I will have to mull it over a bit before I can honestly say that I fully understand it. However, it does make a lot more sense to me now.
I definitely need to look into the TLUD stove though. Maybe we can get one made. We have connections with a welder.
Here's another question for you, based on the example of the corn stalks... We did put almost all of the cornstalks into the TP and they have long since burned away. Some were left standing to act as poles and they are still there even now.
When we burned them as part of the terra preta, did we really turn them into biochar? Should I test the theory somehow?
|
|
