[Terrapreta] more on logistics of corn biochar

[Richard Haard]

Nat

Good question. I have this question and more about climate, nutrient,  
and organic matter profile of soils that can show the 'terrapreta'  
effect. The soils of the amazon  moist tropics are highly leached,  
acetic, low om. My experimental plots are also leached, mildly acetic  
but cool climate and nutrient rich (in calcium and potassium), fair  
om. This is the reason I think it is important to do controlled  
research before announcing a new cure all. In other places charcoal  
in soil may have different but still beneficial effects. In my  
research I am mainly interested if charcoal additions can help to  
maintain higher nitrate levels.I will let you know what I have  
learned in a year or 2.

Rich H
On Aug 1, 2007, at 10:07 PM, Nat Tuivavalagi wrote:

> With regard to #2 in your email below, I have earlier raised the  
> point that
> all the positive results of biochar that I have seen have been on  
> acidic
> soils.
>
> I hereby ask again if anyone has seen any report of any significant  
> positive
> result on an alkaline soil.
>
> Cheers
> Nat
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org
> [mailto:terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Robert  
> Klein
> Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 5:44 AM
> To: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> Subject: [Terrapreta] more on logistics of corn biochar
>
> I share here a couple of posts by Sean and Gerry from
> the terra preta list and my responses.  These help to
> refine aspects of the corn stover hypothesis.
>
> Hi Robert,
>
> #2? What nutrients does the ash provide?  The soil is
> already very alkaline and white ash from complete
> combustion of any biomass is very alkaline.  I do not
> believe either, that ash is a reasonable substitute
> for plant nutrients like Nitrogen-N, Phosphorus-P,
> Potassium-K, Sulfur-S, Calcium-Ca, Iron-Fe,
> Magnesium-Mg, etc.
>
>> Burning is used in all primitive agriculture through
> the method of 'slash and burn' to release nutrients
> captured by the biomass back unto the surface.  It is
> in the form of ash and this means that most of it is
> very soluble and easily leached away.  Biochar would
> likely be much more retentive as the evidence
> suggests.
>
> Charcoal in the original Terra Preta is in large
> chunks.  Larger chunks than will come from corn stover
> (almost power).
>
>> Charcoal from wood will leave chunks that will take
> centuries to break down, which is why it is not nearly
> as suitable for the creation of these soils unless
> they are finely crushed.  Plant waste such as stover
> is already finely divided after charring and is easily
> incorporated into the soils which have been shown to
> hold several per cent of carbon.
>
> #5? Do you have SEM micrograph pictures of pyrolized
> corn pollen (charcoal made from pollen) ?  What pollen
> do you mean?  Where is the pollen from?  How can the
> species of the pollen be determined when it is
> charcoal?  Are there other "cell structures" of corn
> or cassav present in the charcoal?
>
>> It was reported that corn and cassava pollen was the
> main pollen group in these soils.  This would be
> independent of the char.  The one thing archeologists
> can determine with a high degree of certainty is the
> nature of the crops grown on a site.
>
> I don't have a problem with the possibility of using
> corn stover or cassava cultivars as feedstock for the
> production of charcoal. I just do no see the evidence
> that this was the primary feedstock for the production
> of charcoal in the Amazon from 4500 to 500 years ago.
> So far, you are telling a story, but have presented
> nothing scientific to back up your assertions.  Do you
> have any published scientific papers supporting your
> claims?  I have not heard any of this before or read
> any of it.
>
>> This is my hypothesis drawn from available evidence
> and a solid grasp of the constraints visited upon a
> primitive farmer.  Actual confirmation came from the
> pollen profile, rather than the other way around.
>
> Get Johannes Lehman's (from Cornell) book.  Its $229,
> but it is the best reference on the original "Terra
> Preta" formations found in the Amazon rainforest.
> Also, Christoph Steiner has actually been in Brazil,
> studying the development and use of "Terra Preta"
> soils.  He is very familiar with trying to grow corn
> in the native soils.
>
>> The amount of land found covered in "Terra Preta"
> soils is claimed to be about "the size of France".
> If there was enough corn and cassava to pyrolyze into
> charcoal and put into that soil, then where is all of
> the corn now?  What about the cassava?  Neither is
> there in the Amazon rainforest now, enough to produce
> that much charcoal.
>
>> Corn and cassava are human crops that require human
> intervention.  The humans died off shortly after the
> new world was first discovered.
>
> I do not know the age of the Amazon rainforest?  But,
> I would venture that it is greater than 500 years old.
>  Brazil has certainly been near the Equator for more
> than 500 years. The Equatorial regions of the planet
> Earth are ubiquitous with tropical rainforest.  Corn
> fields are rare and always manmade.  The nature of
> that climate zone and the soil there does not support
> corn.  Why isn't there charcoal made from corn in
> North America?  There is and was more corn in North
> America than there is or was in South America.
>
>> That is a very good question.  Why was the technique
> not applied throughout the Mississippi valley and
> Mexico?  My first conjecture is that it simply turned
> out to be largely unnecessary in these soils and field
> rotation remained a viable option.  Of course, the
> knowledge may simply have never spread from its
> homeland. It is a long way without a good intermediary
> user.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> SKB
>
>
> I'm sure that the inventors of terra preta used mud to
> cover up their fallen trees and brush to make
> charcoal!  It's still made that way in many places
> around the world.  In fact that would largely solve
> the matter of how they mixed the topsoil and charcoal,
> because they are both right there together.  In
> contrast, how much effort is it to work all that land
> every single year - six inches deep - to mix in a few
> pounds of corn stover charcoal for a culture that
> didn't even have one single draft animal for
> cultivation??  It doesn't seem feasible.  It makes
> much more sense to do it all in one shot, considering
> the amount of work required to mix the two.
>
>> The difference with corn is that you have ten to
> twenty tons of material at hand in a one acre field.
> And it can be pulled by hand.  No other major crop
> presents this combination.  The charring process as I
> described earlier will naturally mix the produced
> biochar with at least an equal amount of earth.  This
> can then be carried by basket to the seed hills and
> either dug into the hill - unlikely - or simply top
> dressed on the hill.
>
>> What we have is a protocol that a stick farmer can
> use crop after crop with a minimum adjustment in human
> effort that also maintains his fertility decade after
> decade.  You simply go from pulling the stalks and
> burning them to actually using them to build an earth
> surfaced biochar stack.
>
>
> But how did all this get started?  I'll speculate that
> they learned about it by accident.  Perhaps an
> understanding of it grew out of their firing of
> pottery and the disposal of the wastes?  From the
> photos I've seen of some terra preta soil profiles,
> they made lots of
> it.  Maybe the quality of their clay was poorer than
> elsewhere and they had to make it more often and
> thus...??
>
>> I simply think that the nature of the corn root gave
> someone the idea to build a stack as I described that
> on burning created a lot of biochar which naturally
> was distributed to the nearby hills.  This happened on
> a rapidly depleting field and postponed locally the
> abandonment of that part of the field.   Once the
> connection was made, it became fundamental to that
> society and led to its huge expansion.
>
> Whatever a month or so ago, Saibhaskar Nakka wrote
> about the terra preta 'signatures' he was finding in
> India - areas associated with the potter's work.
> Maybe there lies the answer?  Baking of clay within
> semi-airtight containment, results in a mixture of ash
> and charcoal.  And these wastes were then used by the
> potters for their fields.  Maybe this was the way it
> all started in the Amazon?
>
> To my mind, the real mystery of terra preta might not
> be so much how  the Amerindians discovered how to use
> charcoal as a soil amendment,  but why no other
> culture did!
>
>> No other culture had a crop like corn which produced
> ten tons per acre of dry waste that was actually in a
> packable form.  Every other high volume waste is
> typically brush-like and it cannot be packed by hand
> enough to make it work well.
>
> Gerry
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________ 
> ______
> ________
> Building a website is a piece of cake. Yahoo! Small Business gives  
> you all
> the tools to get online.
> http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/webhosting
>
> _______________________________________________
> Terrapreta mailing list
> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> http://bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/ 
> terrapreta_bioenergylists.org
> http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
> http://info.bioenergylists.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Terrapreta mailing list
> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> http://bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/ 
> terrapreta_bioenergylists.org
> http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
> http://info.bioenergylists.org
>