[Terrapreta] more on logistics of corn biochar

[Robert Klein]

This is a  very good question and needs a lot of
experimentation to establish our actual limits.

Having said that, I was exposed to the extensive
effort that has been put into the application of
zeolites in agriculture and in the process became very
aware that activated carbon is similar in performance.

Both are now described properly as solid crystalline
acids.  Some are 10,000 times as powerful as sulphuric
acid which eliminates any question as to potential
chemical activity.

The point that I would like to make is that this
apparently benign substance, in the form of biochar is
a great reactor in the face of more mobile ions.

My core thought here, is that I suspect the carbon
dominates and quickly supports the growing environment
regardless of the general soil condition and Ph.


The really interesting experiment will be in trying to
remediate saline soils.  I must admit that I do not
think it will work very well at all, but I would love
to be proved wrong.



--- Richard Haard <richrd at nas.com> wrote:

> 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
> 
=== message truncated ===



      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Shape Yahoo! in your own image.  Join our Network Research Panel today!   http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7