[Terrapreta] "Living" Biochar

[Sean K. Barry]

Hi Kevin,

Have you ever heard of a buffering agent?  Buffering agents are part of lots of living biological systems.  The bicarbonate ion (HC03-) is a buffering agent.  It can absorb or release hydrogen-H, thus being able to change the pH of solutions containing it.  This is a very common chemical reaction inside living systems, both plant and animal.  It comes from and still exists in very primitive animals and plants, even single cells.  There are other catalytic reactions that carbon molecule are related to, also.  All that a bicarbonate ion is is some carbon, some water, and oxygen.  Carbon and water alone are sometimes even equated with life.  Because most all living things we know about on Earth, pretty much need both.

I think carbon in soil is a "living" part of a bigger living "biosphere".  It can just have a very long residence time in the soil, whereas the other carbon in living systems is going to move around within the biosphere.

Regards,

SKB
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Kevin Chisholm<mailto:kchisholm at ca.inter.net> 
  To: Sean K. Barry<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com> 
  Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 11:28 PM
  Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Sustained Biochar


  Dear Sean

  Sean K. Barry wrote:
  > Hi Kevin,
  >  
  > What makes you think the carbon that would be in charcoal that was put 
  > in the soil would be "removed" from the active biosphere?

  The "Biosphere" is generally defined as "... those parts of the air, 
  water and land where biological activity takes place..."

  Charcoal acting as TP is within this "Biosphere envelope". However, the 
  carbon in the charcoal per se is not taking an active part in the 
  biological and physical processes, like nutrients, but rather as a 
  catalyst, or a physical location for a biological happening.
  >  
  Best wishes,

  Kevin
  > SKB
  > 
  >     ----- Original Message -----
  >     *From:* Kevin Chisholm <mailto:kchisholm at ca.inter.net<mailto:kchisholm at ca.inter.net>>
  >     *To:* Frank Teuton <mailto:fteuton at videotron.ca<mailto:fteuton at videotron.ca>>
  >     *Cc:* Miles Tom <mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>>
  >     *Sent:* Thursday, August 30, 2007 8:16 PM
  >     *Subject:* Re: [Terrapreta] Sustained Biochar
  > 
  >     Dear Frank
  > 
  >     Frank Teuton wrote:
  >      > Dear Jeff,
  > 
  > 
  >     del...
  >      >
  >      > Sean has given the numbers, and Kevin's assertion that any charcoal
  >      > production is better than natural rotting is simply mistaken,
  >     wrong, in
  >      > error, and potentially disastrous if globally implemented.
  > 
  >     I would strongly disagree with you here. Ignoring the possibility of
  >     methane being produced when wood rots, rotting wood removes little to
  >     none of the wood carbon from the active biosphere. The cellulostic
  >     components of wood rot rather quickly, but the lignin components simply
  >     take a "little longer" before they are degraded back to CO2 and H2O. On
  >     the other hand, any charcoal production sequesters carbon and
  >     removes it
  >     from the atmosphere for literally thousands of years.
  > 
  >     Best wishes,
  > 
  >     Kevin
  >      >
  >      > My two cents,
  >      >
  >      > Frank Teuton
  >      >
  >      > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Davis"
  >     <jeff0124 at velocity.net<mailto:jeff0124 at velocity.net> <mailto:jeff0124 at velocity.net<mailto:jeff0124 at velocity.net>>>
  >      > To: "Kevin Chisholm" <kchisholm at ca.inter.net<mailto:kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
  >     <mailto:kchisholm at ca.inter.net<mailto:kchisholm at ca.inter.net>>>
  >      > Cc: "Miles Tom" <terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
  >     <mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>>>
  >      > Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 5:14 PM
  >      > Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Sustained Biochar
  >      >
  >      >
  >      >> Kevin wrote:
  >      >>> Certainly, charring with full use of the retort or pyrolysis
  >     gases is
  >      >>> best, but I would presently appear to me that any form of char
  >      >>> production for Terra Preta is better than allowing the biomass to
  >      >>> decompose naturally, from the standpoint of GHG impact.
  >      >>
  >      >> Daer All,
  >      >>
  >      >> Primitive man has been burning and making charcoal for thousands
  >     of years
  >      >> without global warming, so to say. Only in the last one hundred
  >     years has
  >      >> man become highly educated enough to destroy the environment and
  >     knows
  >      >> enough to blame it on old practices.
  >      >>
  >      >>
  >      >> Just an interesting point,
  >      >>
  >      >>
  >      >> Jeff
  >      >
  >      >
  > 
  > 
  >     _______________________________________________
  >     Terrapreta mailing list
  >     Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org> <mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>>
  >     http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/<http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/>
  >     http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org<http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/>
  >     http://info.bioenergylists.org<http://info.bioenergylists.org/>
  > 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org/attachments/20070830/6d424647/attachment.html