[Terrapreta] Florida Sand

[Sean K. Barry]

Hi Adriana,

Yes, I have seen numbers like 296 times and that number 310 from other sources, too.  I stated the most conservative I saw.  I would imagine GHG emissions measurements and accounting for changes in emissions from soil IS quite difficult.  I wonder if the nitrogen "holding" capacity of the soil is not directly tied to addition of charcoal.  I think its possible that it is more likely indirectly related with the charcoal amendments and more directly related to the effect the charcoal has on the soil microflora?  This is why I think it is important to look at changes in soil organic matter content and growth in the population of soil microorganisms as a result of adding charcoal to soil.

Regards,

SKB
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Adriana Downie<mailto:adriana at bestenergies.com.au> 
  To: 'Sean K. Barry'<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com> 
  Cc: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org> 
  Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 12:40 AM
  Subject: RE: [Terrapreta] Florida Sand


  Sean,

   

  Yes we have done some experimental work looking at nitrous oxide emissions of soils amended with our chars in collaboration with the NSW DPI. In laboratory incubation experiments with some char types we saw huge reductions and in others we saw very little effect, these results should be published by the end of the year. We also have a field trial where we are measuring emissions. The new IPCC value for nitrous oxide is 310 times that of CO2 and yes this does overwhelm all other factors (renewable energy production and carbon sequestration) when we look at the balances (I haven't looked at how this adds up with earthen mound set-ups as this is a non-starter in my opinion). 

   

  The problem is that the soil emissions are notoriously difficult to measure and therefore account for. With so many variables to be taken into consideration, soil type, char type, char manufacture conditions, crop type, climate, fertiliser regime, tillage, rotations...predicting the GHG balance of any system is very challenging.

   

  Regards,

  Adriana Downie

  BEST Energies 

   

  -----Original Message-----
  From: Sean K. Barry [mailto:sean.barry at juno.com] 
  Sent: Tuesday, 28 August 2007 3:11 PM
  To: 'James Oliver'; Adriana Downie
  Cc: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
  Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Florida Sand

   

  Hi Adrianna,

   

  I was just writing to Robert Klein about the importance of not releasing methane (CH4) when charcoal is made from biomass.  My argument to him hinges on the fact that CH4 is a much more potent GHG than CO2 (62 times the GHG effect as CO2), so releasing even small amounts of CH4 from one of his proposed "open air", earthen mound, charcoal kilns (let's say only ~2-3%), can completely obliterate any benefits from burying all of the charcoal that could be produced by the kiln.  In fact, the process would be 10-15 times worse for the fight against atmospheric GHG, than any benefit derived from forming TP.

   

  Now, I see your note to Jim Oliver about reduced nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions.  Nitrous oxide is another extremely potent green house gas (244 times the GHG effect as CO2!).  Has anyone at BEST or have you ever heard of anyone who has attempted to quantify nitrous oxide emissions reduction?

   

  I presume the N2O emissions reductions come from using less industrially produced fertilizer and applying that fertilizer which is used, into charcoal amended soil, which supposedly, because of the increase in microorganism activity and the overall increase in soil organic matter, can "hold" the nitrogen better than un-amended soil?

   

  If the N2O reductions are significant in terms of percentage, then it may still be possible to reduce the GHG effect, and still make charcoal for "Neo Terra Preta", using simple "open-air" charcoal kilns and retorts, that will release CH4.  The benefits of the N2O reduction in agricultural areas that release large amounts of N2O could override the detriment of making the charcoal and releasing the CH4.

   

  Does this make any sense to you?

   

  Regards,

   

  SKB

    ----- Original Message ----- 

    From: Adriana Downie<mailto:adriana at bestenergies.com.au> 

    To: 'James Oliver'<mailto:joliver at abs-usa.com> 

    Cc: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org> 

    Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 6:49 PM

    Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Florida Sand

     

    Hi Jim,

     

    We have done trials on some Australian sandy soil with good yield results. We have found with trials we do on 'good' soils that there is much less significant or no improvement in yields, however there is still a significant increase in fertiliser use efficiency and a decrease in nitrous oxide emissions. This work has been done in collaboration with the New South Wales Department of Primary Industries and publications of these results are on the way. 

     

    Regards,

    Adriana Downie

    BEST Energies Australia

     

    -----Original Message-----
    From: James Oliver [mailto:joliver at abs-usa.com] 
    Sent: Tuesday, 28 August 2007 5:01 AM
    To: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
    Subject: [Terrapreta] Florida Sand

     

    Does anyone know of any trials of biochar on Florida sands?

     

    Is it true that biochar is un-likely to improve yields in soils that are pretty good already (loams)?

     

    I would like to see more results on crop yields can anyone point me to links?  

     

    Jim

     

    _______________________________________________
    Terrapreta mailing list
    Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
    http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
    http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
    http://info.bioenergylists.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org/attachments/20070828/6b23c0b5/attachment-0001.html