[Terrapreta] Charcoal mix continued
Douglas Clayton
dnclayton at wildblue.net
Fri Apr 20 21:39:35 CDT 2007
Randy,
This list is getting completely impossible to keep up with let alone
contribute anything to!
But, I just wanted to mention that your thoughts in this post are in
line with what I was learning from Danny Day a few weeks ago; that
nature, life, the wee beasties and all are, of course, adapted to the
products of natural fires (forest, prairie, etc.) and that in these
natural fire conditions all levels of combustion and charing occur.
Danny pointed out that when a tree is being charred in a forest fire,
the juices in the tree (not his terminology) are being forced out
through the process and are affecting the qualities of the char.
Vinegars, tars, and all the rest of the products of the lower
temperature and incomplete combustion processes are important to life.
I know an aspect of the "high tech"approach he is perfecting is a
mimicking of these natural processes. And it is a weakness I see in
some of the "retort" efforts in that they may produce a too uniform
charcoal lacking in some desirable esoteric qualities.
Thanks to all for the lively discussions.
Doug Clayton
On Apr 20, 2007, at 11:13 AM, Randy Black wrote:
>
>
>
> 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] On Behalf Of
> terrapreta-request at bioenergylists.org
> Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 1:14 AM
> To: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> Subject: Terrapreta Digest, Vol 4, Issue 54
>
> Send Terrapreta mailing list submissions to
> terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>
> http://bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/
> terrapreta_bioenergylists.org
>
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> terrapreta-request at bioenergylists.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 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>
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Charcoal mix continued
> To: <terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>, "Michael N Trevor"
> <mtrevor at ntamar.net>
> Message-ID: <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>
> To:
> terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto: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
>
> http://bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/
> terrapreta_bioenergylists.org
> -------------- 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>
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Part II comments on John Cowan's "thoughts"
> To: "Ron Larson" <rongretlarson at comcast.net>
> Cc: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> Message-ID:
> <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
>>
>> 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
>>
>> 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
> and
> 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>
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] some thoughts about Terra Preta
> To: <terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>, "John Cowan"
> <johncowan at earthlink.net>
> Message-ID: <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>
> To:
> terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto: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>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: John Cowan<mailto:johncowan at earthlink.net>
> To:
> terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto: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
> 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>
>
> http://bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/
> terrapreta_bioenergylists.org
> <http://bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/
> terrapreta_bioenergylists.or
> g>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Terrapreta mailing list
> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
>
> http://bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/
> terrapreta_bioenergylists.org
> -------------- 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
> http://bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/
> terrapreta_bioenergylists.org
>
>
> End of Terrapreta Digest, Vol 4, Issue 54
> *****************************************
>
> _______________________________________________
> Terrapreta mailing list
> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> http://bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/
> terrapreta_bioenergylists.org
>
>
Douglas Clayton
50 Bullard Road
Jaffrey, NH 03452
H. 603-532-7321
W. 603-532-1120
Fax. 603-532-4581
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 23507 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : /pipermail/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org/attachments/20070420/e6da4b43/attachment-0001.bin
More information about the Terrapreta
mailing list