[Terrapreta] Charcoal mix continued

Sean K. Barry sean.barry at juno.com
Fri Apr 20 11:22:01 CDT 2007


Hi Randy,

I do not think the carbon in charcoal that is put into soil provides any kind of nutrient for plants above the ground or soil microorganisms.  Charcoal is a lattice for soil microorganisms.  There may be some decomposable hydrocarbon strings (volatile matter) left in fresh charcoal which microbes can get energy from by decomposing (into CO2 and H2O), but char is not a nutrient to plants.  Plants get the carbon they use, strictly from the inspiration of CO2 from the atmosphere.  Carbon does not form soluble ions in water.  Plants cannot take carbon in through their roots.

Also, Terra Preta soils do contain other organic nutrient bearing stuff, like fish bones (which contain phosphorus and calcium) and plant wastes (the inedible parts of food crops), but it was not charred (not burned either).  It was just added into the soil along with charcoal.  Cation Exchange Capacity is enhanced in Terra Preta soils.  Some think it has more to do with more neutral soil pH and pH buffer capability in TP soils.  I don't know enough to say why or how it is increased.  Maybe Christoph Steiner, Johannes Lehman, or Janice Thies (<- soil scientists) could shed more light on that issue.

SKB
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Randy Black<mailto:rblack at hillcity.k12.sd.us> 
  To: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org> 
  Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 10:13 AM
  Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Charcoal mix continued





  Sean, 

  You have a very good point " I think, rather, that Terra Preta soil is
  an ecology of soil, a habitat in the soil, that promotes improved health
  of soil microorganisms.  The improved soil microbiological activity then
  improves the soil habitat for plants which grow above the soil and root
  into it."

  What also needs to be added to make Terra Preta is large amounts of
  non-wood organic matter (grass, leaves, vegetable waste, and manure),
  and I believe that some of that has to be charred or partially charred.
  The reason for this is that it provides food and resources for the
  microbes and I believe that if some of it is charred across the
  combustion continuum from partial char to charcoal some very interesting
  chemistry takes place making some very interesting food for microbes.
  How the microbes use this partial char and what microbes would use it is
  what I feel is the secret of Terra Preta. What we do know is that the
  Amazonian Indians charred up lots of different material including a lot
  of fish wastes (noted in literature), and there is something in charred
  organic matter that microbes really like.

  One thing I am interested in is the role of humus in Terra Preta. It is
  some cyclic process where the charcoal helps the microbes which in turn
  process the organic matter which in turn leads to humus formation which
  in turn increases the CEC and mineral availability in the soil which
  leads to increased microbial activity which starts the process over.
  What we do know is that charcoal/organic matter is the start to create
  Terra Preta. 

  Randy Black





  From: terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org<mailto:terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org>
  [mailto:terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of
  terrapreta-request at bioenergylists.org<mailto:terrapreta-request at bioenergylists.org>
  Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 1:14 AM
  To: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
  Subject: Terrapreta Digest, Vol 4, Issue 54

  Send Terrapreta mailing list submissions to
  terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>

  To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit

  http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/<http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/>

  or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
  terrapreta-request at bioenergylists.org<mailto:terrapreta-request at bioenergylists.org>

  You can reach the person managing the list at
  terrapreta-owner at bioenergylists.org<mailto:terrapreta-owner at bioenergylists.org>

  When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
  than "Re: Contents of Terrapreta digest..."


  Today's Topics:

     1. Re: Charcoal  mix continued (Sean K. Barry)
     2. Re: Part II comments on John Cowan's "thoughts" (Michael Bailes)
     3. Re: some thoughts about Terra Preta (Sean K. Barry)


  ----------------------------------------------------------------------

  Message: 1
  Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 01:17:40 -0500
  From: "Sean K. Barry" <sean.barry at juno.com<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com>>
  Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Charcoal  mix continued
  To: <terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>>, "Michael N Trevor"
  <mtrevor at ntamar.net<mailto:mtrevor at ntamar.net>>
  Message-ID: <AABDCSYZHAPR5YRA at smtp01.nyc.untd.com<mailto:AABDCSYZHAPR5YRA at smtp01.nyc.untd.com>>
  Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

  Michael,

  Christoph Steiner mentioned, on reading the comment about 30% density of
  charcoal in Terra Preta soil that he thought that number was high (maybe
  even quite high).  I have never actually measured charcoal content in
  any soil, let alone Amazon Terra Preta soil.  He has.  I think we should
  take heed of his first hand experience with the actual Terra Preta soil
  in the actual places where it was discovered.  By his reference, I would
  consider it a given that charcoal is not nearly as dense as 30% in any
  known Terra Preta soils.  I do think Christoph would agree that the
  charcoal found in some examples of Terra Preta soil exists in quite deep
  layers (up to 5 feet?) and that it probably was laid down in those areas
  slowly over quite a long period of time.

  I do not believe, either, that density of charcoal alone is a defining
  issue as to what makes Terra Preta soil a much better plant growing
  medium than surrounding soils.  I think, rather, that Terra Preta soil
  is an ecology of soil, a habitat in the soil, that promotes improved
  health of soil microorganisms.  The improved soil microbiological
  activity then improves the soil habitat for plants which grow above the
  soil and root into it.

  The significant improvement of food crops grown in Terra Preta soils
  versus surrounding oxisol native soils in the Amazon rainforest, may
  also be related to the substantial defiicit that those native soils
  present for food crops.  Even a normal bloom in a desert would be
  measured as outstanding one by anyone familiar with what can and does
  normally grow in a desert.

  SKB
    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Michael N Trevor<mailto:mtrevor at ntamar.net<mailto:mtrevor at ntamar.net>> 
    To:
  terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org%3Cmailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>> 
    Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 9:38 PM
    Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Charcoal mix continued


    Dear Sean

    Thanks for the addition feed back and information. So in human terms
  charcoal addition is partially permanent, being long term
    and persistent. I like your comment, its presence being like a
  catalyst in as what ever it does it seems to remain..
    If it has built up to 30% in some places over thousands of years then
  the actually beneficial amount needed in short term
    must actually be pretty small. If my reasoning is not wrong and we get
  30 % for 3000 years, then doses like 10 and 20 percent
    should be pretty high up on the scale since even amounts like.03
  percent per year might have accumulative effects over time.

    Regards,

    Michael

    _______________________________________________
    Terrapreta mailing list
    Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
   
  http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/<http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/>
  -------------- next part --------------
  An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
  URL:
  /pipermail/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org/attachments/20070420/80e3da07/a
  ttachment-0001.html 

  ------------------------------

  Message: 2
  Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:38:55 +1000
  From: "Michael Bailes" <michaelangelica at gmail.com<mailto:michaelangelica at gmail.com>>
  Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Part II comments on John Cowan's "thoughts"
  To: "Ron Larson" <rongretlarson at comcast.net<mailto:rongretlarson at comcast.net>>
  Cc: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
  Message-ID:
  <7dcba7be0704192338y28826e38o504bce1fcd5b0acd at mail.gmail.com<mailto:7dcba7be0704192338y28826e38o504bce1fcd5b0acd at mail.gmail.com>>
  Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"

  John Cowan said:
  >
  > Here is another idea worth pondering - "magic coal" made by pressure
  > cooking biomass. It avoids certain problems with making charcoal but
  has
  > some new issues to overcome.
  > http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2071791,00.html<http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2071791,00.html>
  >
  > a. Like John, I found this new and very interesting. By scouting
  around
  > for more on the subject, I also found
  > http://peswiki.com/index.php/Translate:MPG:Coal_from_Biomass<http://peswiki.com/index.php/Translate:MPG:Coal_from_Biomass>
  >
  > b. Some more observations:
  >
  >    1. I see the use of the word "coal" here ? as we did with
  "charcoal"
  >    >> "coal" in Russian
  >
  >     b.  This "coal" is described as being brown.
  >
  > 4.  Anyone (hoping especially to hear from Mike Antal) able to shed
  more
  > light on more details? (There are some references that look worth
  tracking
  > down, but no time yet to do that.)
  >
  > Ron
  >
  Are not Leonardite, and Australian Organic Humate, both a form of "coal"
  Has anyone used any of these products on their soil?
  Anyone know much about the role of humates in the soil?
  SEE
  http://www.australianhumates.com/index2.asp?go=the_story.html<http://www.australianhumates.com/index2.asp?go=the_story.html>
  and
  http://www.maddingleyminerals.com.au/html/what_is_humic_acid.html<http://www.maddingleyminerals.com.au/html/what_is_humic_acid.html>
  -- 
  Michael B
  -------------- next part --------------
  An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
  URL:
  /pipermail/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org/attachments/20070420/b01d0e19/a
  ttachment-0001.html 

  ------------------------------

  Message: 3
  Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 02:13:56 -0500
  From: "Sean K. Barry" <sean.barry at juno.com<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com>>
  Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] some thoughts about Terra Preta
  To: <terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>>, "John Cowan"
  <johncowan at earthlink.net<mailto:johncowan at earthlink.net>>
  Message-ID: <AABDCS4AYAZR4QD2 at smtp02.nyc.untd.com<mailto:AABDCS4AYAZR4QD2 at smtp02.nyc.untd.com>>
  Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

  Hi John,

  When you consider that the bulk of biomass is hydrocarbons, then
  increased plant growth (biomass growth) equates to increased CO2 uptake.
  Plants do not get carbon from any source but the atmosphere (inspired
  CO2).

  Using fossil fuel as the standard for lowest cost energy source today
  (it is, ask an oil company executive , or a coal mine operator), then
  there is an obvious cost for BTUs/kwH/horsepower of energy (like
  $2.55/gall for gasoline @ ~125,000 BTU).  The cost to bring this @$2.55
  gallon of gasoline includes raw material (petroleum crude),
  transportation (oil tanker shipping, tanker truck), production (refining
  crude into gasoline), distribution (gas station marketing), credit
  management (your gas station credit card), and greed (ENRON).  It does
  not directly include costs like security (the war Dubyah started in Iraq
  and the consequent taxes your grandchildren's grandchildren will be
  paying for that), hurricane Katrina (ferocity and frequency caused by
  global warming, not to mention is effects on the costs of operating the
  USA's largest and nearly only petroleum refining sites in the world),
  third world drought, famine, and starvation, which the first world feels
  compelled to pay
    for (and well they should, since it is our activities which effect
  world climate and are in part causing it), and etc (the world is going
  to hell in a hand basket because of our current energy economy).  I'll
  stop the diatribe.  The point is, the price paid for using carbon
  emitting fossil fuels does not even begin to accommodate the true cost
  of using them.

  This is recognized by many who do not have a direct financial stake in
  selling fossil fuels.  It is ignored by those who do.  What the Kyoto
  Protocol tried to do, and is doing in other parts of the world, is cap
  the level emissions of carbon to the atmosphere by enacting legislation
  which would impose a fine, or a fee, or a tax, on economic entities
  which produced net positive carbon dioxide emissions into the
  atmosphere.  Also enacted, these carbon polluters could trade for carbon
  credits (offsetting their CO2 emissions fees) with entities which could
  show a net carbon negative system, a sink.  These are not government
  subsides, these are not taxes on populations.  These were fees and
  credits transacted between entities which either produce CO2 emissions
  or sink carbon.

  Too be sure, these would represent immediate costs to entities who
  produce CO2 emissions and who could not find credits for the sinking of
  carbon by others.  Too be sure, if CO2 polluters had to sink enough
  carbon to equate with their own emissions, they would endure costs.
  Greed caused powerful business interests from big CO2 polluters (oil,
  coal, and automotive industries) to run their screaming US congressional
  lobbyists to Washington DC, to scare the bejezzus out the the US
  congress by telling them that "Well, we will JUST HAVE to pass these
  costs on to the American public."  "Your constituents will blame you for
  doing this to them and not re-elect you!"

  But, in places like Australia, where they did sign on to the Kyoto
  protocol, "carbon cap and trade" is big business now.  In 2005, carbon
  trading was a $100 BILLION business just that year.  By 2012, it is
  estimated to be $500 billion, in Australia alone.  That does not
  represent government subsidy in any way shape or form.  It is
  potentially huge government revenue (business income taxes).  It
  represent enormous new business growth (carbon sequestration businesses
  selling credits).

  It is currently very easy to take local agricultural waste (free raw
  material, no transportation, no very high tech refineries) and turn it
  into economically produced locally usable energy (electricity).  It is
  also entirely doable to make biomass into liquid transportation fuels
  (ethanol and synthetic diesel are already being made from biomass).
  Additionally, all of this can be cone with biomass and at the same time,
  carbon can be removed from the atmosphere and put into a very long term
  sink (charcoal in soil).  Doing this can increase plant growth in those
  soils, and consequently increase CO2 uptake by those fields.  Doing this
  can make soils which require less or even NO application of industrial
  chemical fertilizer (the production of fertilizer, incidentally, is the
  second largest user of fossil fuels in the USA, after transportation).

  BIOMASS processing = cheaper ENERGY + more productive AGRICULTURE soils
  - atmospheric CARBON.

  SKB

    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: John Cowan<mailto:johncowan at earthlink.net<mailto:johncowan at earthlink.net>> 
    To:
  terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org%3Cmailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>> 
    Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 10:08 PM
    Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] some thoughts about Terra Preta


    Hi Sean,

    I don't understand your line of questioning. How would I measure the
  carbon dioxide uptake? In some kind of artificial lab chamber? In the
  open environment it would be very difficult to measure. You could do a
  dry weight measure of the whole plant but what about exudates to the
  soil and microbes [10-50% of photosynthate]. Have you measured the CO2
  uptake?

    I have read a large portion of the hard and web-based literature on
  terra preta and the use of charcoal in the soil. Your biomass production
  scheme is pretty standard fare for biomass energy production/carbon
  sequestration. If you can figure out a way to make it economically work
  that would be great. Onsite electric generation might by one way.
  Personally, I like bamboo as a biomass crop but it depends on various
  circumstances.

    I do have to question the concept of government payments for carbon
  credits. Subsidies do not represent a true economy. The fact that
  payments are made does not reflect that this is indeed solving or going
  to solve the world climate crisis. Positive alternatives do not
  necessarily lead to change. Think about the medical field. The driving
  force is not the positive alternatives that are out there but instead it
  is the system already in place that has its own economic interest and
  paradigm. Thats not to say that change won't happen just probably not in
  a nice linear fashion.

    John Cowan


    Sean K. Barry wrote: 
      Hi John Cowan,

      Welcome to our discussions.  Have you ever attempted to measure the
  effect on carbon dioxide uptake there is by plants that show increased
  growth, due to enhancement of the soil under them with even a small
  amount of charcoal (say 5% in the top 15cm)?

      What if charcoal was put into soil that was used to grow and energy
  crop, like Salix (fast growing willow), or sugar cane, or switch grass?
  Those crops could be harvested annually, or coppiced every three years
  (Salix), the biomass used to produce carbon neutral fuels (like ethanol,
  methanol, or synthetic diesel) and/or carbon neutral electric power.

      If only part of the biomass energy was used for fuel and the rest
  left in charcoal, then that charcoal could be used to make another field
  of an energy crop grow faster and bigger, increasing it's uptake of
  atmospheric CO2 and its yield of energy.  It would also make the energy
  originally harvested for use into CARBON NEGATIVE energy.

      There are areas of the planet, countries and governments even, who
  have pulled their heads out of their donkey's and they have enacted a
  "carbon cap and trade system" to provide an economic incentive to reduce
  CO2 emissions.  I believe that charcoal production from biomass and the
  consequent gains in biomass yield (CO2 uptake), along with a worldwide
  market for carbon trading, can change our worldwide energy economy over
  to one which is carbon negative.  In the current state of the world, I
  believe there are better economic incentives in harvesting carbon
  negative energy, than there are in harvesting carbon neutral energy.
  Charcoal in soil will enhance the productivity of both.

      Regards,

      Sean K. Barry
      Principal Engineer/Owner
      Troposphere Energy, LLC
      11170 142nd St. N.
      Stillwater, MN 55082
      (651) 351-0711 (Home/Fax)
      (651) 285-0904 (Cell)
      sean.barry at juno.com<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com%3Cmailto:sean.barry at juno.com>>
        ----- Original Message ----- 
        From: John Cowan<mailto:johncowan at earthlink.net<mailto:johncowan at earthlink.net>> 
        To:
  terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org%3Cmailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>> 
        Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 6:40 PM
        Subject: [Terrapreta] some thoughts about Terra Preta


        After monitoring this group for a month, I am both encouraged and 
        disheartened by the messages submitted by others.

        First off, Terra Preta is about adding charcoal and other 
        organic-derived nutrients to the soil. The spinoffs of somehow
  saving 
        the earth from runaway carbon dioxide by dreaming of massive
  charcoal 
        production and soil incorporation are just a bit unrealistic when
  you 
        consider the scope of the problem, the complexity and who controls
  the 
        infrastructure resources of the planet to make such a program
  possible.

        After years of doing my own organic growing research, I would say
  that 
        from my experiments done last year that the use of charcoal in
  specific 
        ways can be a very powerful tool for improving the physical,
  chemical, 
        colloidal properties of the soil.and microbiological ecology.

        One of the big reasons that charcoal is so beneficial to worn out 
        tropical soils is that the colloidal nature of the soil is changed
  so 
        that it can hold on to cations in a way similar to most temperate
  soils. 
        Check out mellitic acid and its variants. Google for "Soil: Our 
        Interface with the Environment" by Bruce Johnson. This explains
  the CEC 
        transformation.

        The most important issue about improving the soil for plant growth
  is 
        the microbiology. Charcoal provides all sorts of factors favorable
  to 
        beneficial microbes. Everyone needs to know about mycorrhizia and
  the 
        exudates they produce. Also about the nitrogen fixers like
  rhizobia, 
        azosprillium and azotobacter who need excellent soil structure to 
        perform. Think about the living process of granule formation and
  crumb 
        structure. These are the true marks of progress to a healthy soil.

        This leads me to the crazy notions about adjusting soil pH like we
  are 
        adjusting the air/fuel mixture on a carburetor. Applying large
  amounts 
        of sulfur, chemical nitrogen or various limes to move the pH down
  or up 
        has many problems - nutrient imbalances, microbe die out, toxicity
  to 
        name a few. Yes, it is espoused by ag and hort experts as
  important and 
        pragmatic. Consider the source and what other sterling advise they
  give out.

        The biggest problem with charcoal is how to make it efficiently on
  a 
        small scale with local materials. I don't have any good answers
  yet. 
        Some of the work in India looks good but requires lots of time to
  manage 
        the process. Like Sean said high tech retorts aren't cheap. Plus
  you 
        have to be in an area where such a process is legal to do.

        So far I have used Cowboy lump charcoal ground to a powder, more
  or 
        less, with an old meat grinder and/or an electric coffee mill.
  Don't 
        laugh. It works for a few pounds. I have cultured the charcoal
  with my 
        own high quality worm castings, about 50/50, plus a small amount
  [3-5% 
        vol.] of soluble fish powder [or krill meal] plus a little rock 
        phosphate. I've use a very small amount [ maybe a couple of
  heaping 
        TBS.] of this on problem plants in pots or as a test on a few
  plants in 
        the veggie garden with positive results that were very obvious.
  And, 
        yes, I've used these materials separately without these results.
  It is 
        not a raw nutrient effect. This was all surface applied and
  watered in.

        I've also played around with potting soil tests and found the
  charcoal 
        to be too much at 5-10% compared to controls. A coarser charcoal
  might 
        be different but seems a waste [expensive] unless you have lots of

        charcoal at hand. For potting soil there are lots of other
  granular 
        materials to increase porosity.

        Here is another idea worth pondering - "magic coal" made by
  pressure 
        cooking biomass. It avoids certain problems with making charcoal
  but has 
        some new issues to overcome.
   
  http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2071791,00.html<http://www.dw-w<http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2071791,00.html%3Chttp://www.dw-w>
  orld.de/dw/article/0,2144,2071791,00.html>

        If anything I have said is worth discussing publicly or privately,

        please have at it.

        John Cowan

        _______________________________________________
        Terrapreta mailing list
   
  Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org%3Cmailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>>
   
  http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/<http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/>
  <http://bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/terrapreta_bioenergylists.or<http://bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/terrapreta_bioenergylists.or>
  g>


    _______________________________________________
    Terrapreta mailing list
    Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
   
  http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/<http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/>
  -------------- next part --------------
  An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
  URL:
  /pipermail/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org/attachments/20070420/0b7fc4f0/a
  ttachment.html 

  ------------------------------

  _______________________________________________
  Terrapreta mailing list
  Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
  http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/<http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/>


  End of Terrapreta Digest, Vol 4, Issue 54
  *****************************************

  _______________________________________________
  Terrapreta mailing list
  Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
  http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/<http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org/attachments/20070420/2ce3f37d/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the Terrapreta mailing list