[Terrapreta] REAP Posts on Bokashi

[Tom Miles]

Roger's post on bokashi to the stoves list is at:

http://listserv.repp.org/pipermail/stoves_listserv.repp.org/2006-March/00274
6.html

His post to the Gasification list follows in reponse to a post by John
Flottvik:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roger Samson [mailto:rsamson at reap-canada.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 7:10 AM
> To: 'John G. Flottvik'; tmiles at trmiles.com;
> gasification at listserv.repp.org
> John
> 
> 
> The potential to develop energy and organic fertilizer from biomass is
> highly promising. The main problem in North America with using wood
> residues
> is rising biomass feedstock costs and availability.
> 
> I sent the message out below to the stoves list serve last month. We
> are
> making carbonized soil amendments from household cookers and piles of
> crop
> milling residues in the Philippines and West Africa. We have a 37 page
> manual on the technology (3MB) that I can send to anyone interested. In
> North America, high fibre low feed value residues such as corn cobs,
> and oat
> hulls, could be developed as carbonized fuels. Using sugars, indigenous
> microorganisms, wheat bran, manure and carbonized crop residuals makes
> a
> pretty amazing organic fertilizer called bokashi.
> 
> Roger Samson
> www.reap-canada.com
> 
> 
> 
> REAP-Canada and Pabinhi in the Philippines have just finished a 37 page
> manual on organic soil amendments for nature farming. This includes a
> section on the production of carbonized rice hull which is used as a
> component for high quality biological active organic fertilizers. We
> are
> also experimenting with production of carbonized millet husk in Gambia
> for
> soil improvement. We are hoping to use the Mayon Turbo Stove and   TLUD
> gasifier in other countries using millet husk and cocoa shell in the
> future
> as a dual cooking and soil improvement system.
> Here is a section below of the manual that discusses carbonization.  I
> would
> be pleased to send the report to stovers interested in this topic.
> Roger Samson
> 
> (snip)
> 
> Carbonized rice hull from biomass stoves
> 
> 
> The increasing cost of LPG fuel and the rapid depletion of forest
> resources
> in the Philippines are spurring an initiative to develop alternate
> cooking
> fuels.  Waste biomass materials such as rice hulls have the potential
> to
> provide an abundant and inexpensive fuel supply.  The Mayon Turbo Stove
> (MTS, designed by REAP-Canada) and the Belonio rice husk top-lit
> updraft
> (T-LUD) gasifier (Belonio, 2005) (figure 3.4) are both powered by rice
> hulls.  The MTS is a small stove designed for household cooking
> applications
> whereas the Belonio rice husk gasifier is designed for large-scale
> cooking
> operations.  The operation of these stoves produces high quality
> carbonized
> rice hull as a by-product which can be recuperated for use in the
> production
> of bokashi fermented organic fertilizer.  Between 35-40% of the rice
> hull
> consumed by the stoves remains as a blend of carbonized rice hull and
> rice
> hull ash (table 3.1).
> 
> 
> 
> In order to recover carbonized rice hull from the cooking stoves the
> fuel
> must be removed from the stove immediately after operation and
> extinguished
> with water.  Otherwise, combustion will continue and the rice hulls
> will
> become ash.  If we assume the lowest possible yield of CRH from the
> stove
> (557 g of CRH recovered per hour of stove operation) and that an
> average
> household spends 1 hour a day cooking we can conclude that
> approximately 1.4
> metric tonnes of CRH can be produced per household per year.  The
> volume of
> carbonized rice hull produced from cooking applications should
> therefore be
> ample for subsequent use in the production of bokashi.  Integrating
> biomass
> stove technologies with bokashi production can save the time and labor
> associated with the production of carbonized rice hull and provides a
> means
> for disposing of combustion by-products.
> 
> 
> 
> (snip)
> 
> conclusion
> 
> 
> 
> The organic soil amendments described in this document have proved
> extremely
> useful for jumpstarting the soil rehabilitation process on farms that
> are
> initiating the conversion to organic agriculture.  The long term use of
> inorganic fertilizers results in a soil that is impoverished in terms
> of
> organic matter content, microbial activities and structure.  The first
> years
> of organic cultivation are frequently characterized by lower yields and
> reduced farm income until the soil has been restored.  This is a
> particularly serious concern on small-scale farms whose primary
> function is
> to provide for the nutritional needs of a family.  Funds are not always
> available to supplement nutritional shortfalls engendered by short term
> yield decreases.  It is therefore important to accelerate the
> restoration of
> the soil so as to render the conversion to organic agriculture feasible
> for
> small landowners by reducing the associated risk.
> 
> 
> 
> Bokashi fermented organic fertilizer has been a particularly important
> tool
> for recruiting and energizing new members in organic farming
> organizations.
> Many farmers are interested in adopting organic agriculture practices
> but
> have concerns about decreased crop yields and profits.  Annual reports
> from
> PABINHI-affiliated People's Organizations in a number of regions
> throughout
> The Philippines have shown equal or higher yield levels on farms that
> used
> bokashi organic fertilizer compared to neighboring conventional farms.
> This
> is probably due to a number of factors including inoculation of the
> soil
> with beneficial microorganisms, the high organic matter content of the
> bokashi, and the use of carbonized rice hulls to improve soil
> structure,
> water retention and microbial activity.
> 
> 
> 
> Farmers who have successfully rehabilitated their soil using bokashi
> and
> other amendments over a number of years report that they are now
> favoring
> the use of compost and decreasing the application rate of bokashi.
> Bokashi
> provides a powerful combination of beneficial microorganisms, abundant
> organic matter and essential nutrients and micronutrients to degraded
> soil.
> This stimulates the development of a healthy soil biota and good soil
> structure.  It may no longer be necessary to reapply bokashi as
> frequently
> once this has been accomplished.  The most important component to add
> to the
> soil at this point is composted organic matter to feed and maintain the
> existing soil biota.
> 
> 
> 
> Economic developments in The Philippines in recent years have provided
> impetus for reducing the use of commercial agricultural inputs and, as
> a
> result, there is now an increased interest in closed-loop farming where
> agricultural residues are recycled into the farm ecosystem.  The rapid
> increase in the cost of fossil fuels has increased the price of
> synthetic
> fertilizers and chemicals.  Inflation and depreciation of the
> Philippine
> peso has also led to increased prices for imported agrochemical
> products.
> Organic crop amendments produced from native materials now have a much
> lower
> cost than commercial amendments.  This is especially true when farmer's
> organizations undertake large-scale production of some amendments which
> can
> be distributed to participants.  During these activities group members
> donate materials and labor in return for an allotment of the output.
> This
> practice has the additional positive impact of increasing cooperation
> and
> communication between farmer-members of the organizations.  The most
> important long-term impact of these organic agriculture practices is
> the
> reinforcement of self-reliance and creativity among farmers.
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
> [mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org] On Behalf Of John G.
> Flottvik
> Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2006 2:58 PM
> To: tmiles at trmiles.com; gasification at listserv.repp.org
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] Making Biomass Work,
> 
> Tom.
> 
> Two sets of challenges or scenarios.
> First, if our portable units were to be implemented in the forest, log
> landing or at a small wood project, it would not be possible to produce
> electricity because no grid is available and you simply could not just
> hook
> up power like plugging in a plug. Therefor, for this kind of operation
> you
> would only have the charcoal to sell, and as much as I don't believe in
> collecting the bio-oil as it is not yet an easy sell, those would be
> your
> two sellable products. You could possibly be eligible for carbon
> credits but
> 
> I apologize as I don't know the per ton price at this time. Further we
> would
> 
> have to trim as much expense as possible such as setting up as close to
> the
> fiber as possible to save transport cost of low value fiber, and
> possibly
> find a micro turbine of, say 100 to 150 Kw. that could run of our
> excess hot
> 
> air. Being 100 % self contained & with all this in place we could be
> down to
> 
> a daily (24 hr) operating cost of around $1296.00
> 
> The other way is to collaborate with small mills in the area to set up
> there. There we would be able to supply hot oil heating for a dry kiln,
> sell
> 
> the carbon, produce power for the grid and central heating for the
> mill/offices thus cutting the natural gas cost.
> Note that the bio-oil would be out of this equation as we would use it
> as a
> gas to fuel an onsite turbine.
> Now that  the mill would have a dry kiln, local talent can do what was
> demonstrated at the conference, and that is to make value added
> products
> like furniture, flooring, moldings etc. I was very impressed by these
> innovative people.
> The con of this would be the higher transport cost.
> 
> The activated carbon we will make will be of low quality but should be
> OK to
> 
> use on farmers and other fields to filter pesticides and trace manure's
> from
> 
> entering rivers streams and the aquifers. This will be a test program
> in
> progress as it will take time to show any benefits, BUT we need to
> start
> somewhere. Richard Hard was kind enough to have a lab test done on our
> soil
> enhancement product and the analysis came back pretty darn good and
> Richard
> knows a lot more about carbon in soil than I ever will.
> 
> Regards
> John Flottvik
> 
> www.jfWasteEnergySystems.com
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tom Miles" <tmiles at trmiles.com>
> To: "'John G. Flottvik'" <jovick at shaw.ca>;
> <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
> Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2006 10:29 AM
> Subject: RE: [Gasification] Making Biomass Work,
> 
> 
> > John,
> >
> > Nice report.
> >
> > Catherine Mater and I are trying to answer a specific question for
> the
> > recovery of forest residues and small diameter timber:
> >
> > When residues and small diameter timber cost $30 to $50/dry ton
> delivered
> > to
> > a site in or near the supply, and electricity costs/prices are
> $0.06/kWhe,
> > can carbon products from pyrolysis or gasification return enough
> value (in
> > $/ton wood feed) to pay for harvesting and conversion?
> >
> > If we are able to identify a clear market for carbon that will either
> > cover
> > these costs, or, with electricity contribute enough revenue to make
> power
> > generation feasible, then we will develop a project.
> >
> > The characteristics of carbon from gasification and pyrolysis, and
> the
> > potential benefits for growth enhancement have been discussed on the
> > gasification and stoves lists. Our challenge is whether there is
> enough
> > monetary value in the carbon products to justify the processing.
> >
> > To date we have found that activated carbon (AC) dominates the
> potential
> > markets. Carbon from pyrolysis and gasification is not activated
> carbon.
> > Its
> > commercial value as an AC substitute in specific applications has not
> been
> > established. While there is general agreement that carbon enhances
> growth
> > there is little data for carbon from our softwoods (Douglas fir,
> pine) and
> > no apparent commercial products. So it looks like a product
> development
> > problem.
> >
> > It sounds like you have a blended commercial product ready to find a
> > market.
> > We hope that you can find customers willing to pay full value.
> >
> > Kind regards,
> >
> > Tom Miles
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
> > [mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org] On Behalf Of John G.
> > Flottvik
> > Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2006 8:14 AM
> > To: gasification at listserv.repp.org
> > Subject: [Gasification] Making Biomass Work,
> >
> > List.
> >
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > Using char to enhance soil also came up in a presentation by a very
> > dynamic
> > speaker from Mater Engineering. Catherine Mater was taking about
> softwood
> > charcoal as a soil enhancement, and was surprised when I gave her a
> > brochure
> > on our new product called JF BioCarbon Soil Enhancement..(TM) Yes,
> its
> > made
> > from powder softwood charcoal and cow manure, and is replicating what
> the
> > natives in the Amazon jungle did 2500 years ago ( Terra Preta Soils)
> >
> > The soil enhancement program has me very excited as does the huge
> interest
> > we received in regards of our new 40 TPD portable unit and forest
> thinning
> > projects. Hope this is not classed as of topic as there has been a
> lot of
> > straying lately. Thanks.
> >
> > Regards
> > John Flottvik
> >
> > www.jfWasteEnergySystems.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gasification mailing list
> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification
> 
> 
>