[Terrapreta] Charcoal costs

[Richard Haard]

On Dec 9, 2007, at 8:34 PM, Kevin Chisholm wrote:
> Dear Richard
>
> Richard Haard wrote:
>> S,K,J,N and Tom
>>
>> Jim and I have been discussing CEC and soil nutrition and charcoal  
>> for a few rounds offline and the apparent anomaly of my data not  
>> showing a boost in CEC with charcoal addition.
> Could it be that with low temperature char, still containing  
> volatiles and/or products of incomplete charring, the future CEC  
> sites are presently blocked, but that with some combination of  
> microbial action and weathering over several years, the tars and  
> volatiles still on the char will be decomposed or removed to yield  
> an "active" char?

It is going to be interesting to follow this in these plots
>
>> Rereading Steiner etal tonight I have concluded my  first year data  
>> is consistent with first year results obtained by Steiner in Brazil.
>> It seems that charcoal addition to soil does not make terra preta  
>> and that terra preta itself is the product of a long term  
>> biological, chemical and physical process. The process we used to  
>> make our charcoal 2 was identical to the local production method  
>> where Steiner obtained his charcoal.
>> Jim or anyone do you have a citation that supports your statement  
>> in an earlier posting
>>
>> Jim Joyner wrote:
>>> The CEC increases with compost and charcoal (in Brazil)  . . .  
>>> well, of course it does.
> I don't have any specific references to support this on its own, but  
> washed char tests by Cheng Lehmann and Thies
> http://www.georgiaitp.org/carbon/PDF%20Files/Posters/ChengPoster.pdf  
> shows that char will increase the CEC.
thanks
>
> They used char which was much smaller than the lump and stick  
> charcoal you used. Two differences between your protocol and theirs  
> were washing and finer size.

Yes since the CEC test is so easy to have done I have been thinking to  
try washing some of my stockpile. My Charcoal 1 is a fine powder from  
John F

>
>
> This is a big reach, but is it possible that there was sampling  
> bias? Specifically, is it possible that when taking samples, the  
> large lumps of char were removed inadvertently in the field, or  
> perhaps by screening at the Lab?
>

I assume there is sampling error. But did the best I can by taking 12  
cores from each of my 28 - 17 foot plots. We used gloves and screened  
the samples after drying.
> Note also that your units for CEC seem to be cmole/kg while Cheng et  
> al use mmole/kg. How does one convert between teh different units.?

Steiner et al used cmole/kg , my samples i neglected to look at the  
report sheet - sorry / mine are MEQ/100g. Same as Jims

Good question . no idea at all how to convert between the 3. The data  
sets are relative anyway.

Any chemists out there?
>
>
> How did you measure crop yields? Did you see much difference between  
> the various plots?

I am working on my report now. This discussion is helping. No above  
ground differences in Swiss Chard yields or appearance or with Aster  
subspicatus. With the Lonicera involucrata - a native shrub there were  
differences both above ground and with roots after the lifter-shaker  
removed them from the ground.

It was very difficult to physically measure this however. I now  
appreciate the work that agricultural researchers accomplish. The best  
I could do is to stand back and look.

< 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Charcoal103007 on Flickr - Photo Sharing!.webloc
Type: application/applefile
Size: 881 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : /pipermail/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org/attachments/20071209/bffe6f26/attachment.bin 
-------------- next part --------------
 >

This is charcoal 1 (Johns) , I will prepare a posting of the root  
images soon.

Next Seasons production from the plots will be much simpler to  
analyze, a single species -a nitrogen loving shrub I will explain in  
my report.



>
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Kevin
>
>
>>
>>
>> Here are some quotes from Steiner et al (2007) and my comments that  
>> might be interesting for this topic of CEC and charcoal in soil.
>>
>> Paper cited: Long term effects of manure, charcoal and mineral  
>> fertilization on crop production and fertility on a highly  
>> weathered central Amazon upland soil
>> abstract here<
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> >
>>
>> from Steiner et al et al p 2
>>
>> Terra Preta research has shown that oxidation on the edges of the  
>> aromatic backbone and adsorbtion of other OM to charcoal is  
>> responsible for the increased CEC, although the proportion of these  
>> two processed is unclear (Liang et al 2006)
>> cited  Liang B et al Black Carbon increases cation exchange  
>> capacity in soils Soil Sci Soc Am J 70:1719-1730
>>
>> and from page 12 - ' the period of this study might have not been  
>> sufficient for oxidation'
>>
>> 'and SOM was only effective at increasing CEC levels above pH 5.5  
>> which is consistent with the blockage of exchange sites by either  
>> Al or Fe at lower values ---- In our study only plots fertilized  
>> with CM had pH values higher than 5.5 and increased CEC. '
>>
>> His charcoal was derived from a secondary producer and manually  
>> crushed ( not special charcoal and made with a technique identical  
>> to our charcoal 2 = heap burn)
>>
>> Definitions of his treatment blocks
>>
>> C  control
>> L  leaf litter
>> LB   simulated slash and burn (burned litter)
>> F    inorganic fertilizer
>> CM  chicken manure
>> 2CO  compost
>> 2CC   charcoal
>> 2CO+F  compost +F 2CC+F   charcoal + F
>> CC+CO  Charcoal + Compost
>> 2CC+CO   Charcoal + Compost
>> 2CC+CO+F Charcoal + Compost + Fertilizer
>> 2CCp charcoal pieces
>>
>> From Table 2 page 11 of Steiner et al soil Chemical Properties  
>> after first harvest (CEC only)
>>
>> (cmole+kg-1)
>>
>> Steiner et al  after first harvest values first -  then my own  
>> after first harvest (charcoal 1 then charcoal 2)
>> C 1.61          9.85
>> L 1.52
>> LB 1.73
>> F 2.16 12.05
>> CM 12.55
>> 2CO 1.94 11.9
>> 2CC 1.80 10.4,11.9
>> 2CO+F 2.45 12.3
>> 2CC+F 1.94 10.1, 11.25
>> 2CC+CO  1.8 10.95, 12.3
>> 2CC+CO+F 2.11 12.7, 12
>> 2CCp 1.65
>>
>> Interesting pattern here. Charcoal 1 showed the best indication of  
>> enhanced growth above ground and roots. I might speculate the lower  
>> CEC values represent greater nutrient utilization. Additionally,  
>> CEC may be incidental to the role of charcoal in soil. We should  
>> include also biological factors in our considerations.
>> In terms of biological contribution to beneficial effects of  
>> charcoal additions Steiner et al concluded
>>
>> The conditions of ADE (Amazon Dark Earth) are ideal for maximum  
>> biological N2 fixtation. About 77% of the ADE sampled showed  
>> positive incidence of /Aspospirillum sp./ compared to only 10 % of  
>> the Ferralsols. Charcoal provides a good habitat for the  
>> propagation of useful microorganisms such as free living nitrogen  
>> fixing bacteria and mycorrhizal fungi. Ogawa holds the charcoals  
>> weak alkalinity, porosity and ability to retain water and air  
>> responsible for stimulation of microbes (citations excluded).
>>
>> Steiner et al did conclude that
>> 'Charcoal proved to sustain fertility if an additional nutrient  
>> source was given. Even though significantly more nutrients were  
>> exported from the charcoal plots (with higher yields) the available  
>> nutrient contents of the soil did not decrease in comparison to  
>> just mineral fertilized plots'
>>
>> In addition he demonstrated highest mineral losses in plots treated  
>> with Chicken Manure, followed by compost, then litter and control.
>> Rich H
>>
>
>
>