[Terrapreta] Charcoal costs

[Richard Haard]

Thanks Kevin - Good discussion. I'm only starting to digest this data  
and your questions help me get focused.
On Dec 10, 2007, at 5:52 AM, Kevin Chisholm wrote:
> Dear Richard
>
> Richard Haard wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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.
> Yes indeed. Reports from elsewhere allude to a "time effect".
>
> ...del...
>
>>>
>>> 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.
> What about the possibility of trying methanol and perchlorethylene  
> as solvents, in addition to a water leach?


>
>> My Charcoal 1 is a fine powder from John F
> Oh. I missed that.
>> 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.
> Your data for the Charcoal 1 and Charcoal 2 tests is as follows:
>
> ......................OM..........CEC
> 1: Charcoal 1   4.9            12.25
> 2: Charcoal 1   5.75         10.4
> 3: Charcoal 2   4.7            13.05
> 4: Charcoal 2   5.2            11.35
> 5: Control        4.6            10.9
> 6: Control         4.2            9.85
>
> I am guessing that the "background organic matter" in the control  
> soil used for Charcoal 1 (Fine) and Charcoal 2(Lump/Stick) tests was  
> basically constant.
> I am also guessing that Tests 1 and 3 were "Low Charcoal Additions"  
> and Tests 2 and 4 were "High Charcoal Additions", based on the  
> higher reported OM contents. If these guesses are correct, then the  
> CEC results are counterintuitive... Low Char additions give high CEC  
> and High Char additions give low CEC. The consistent anomaly  
> suggests that sampling error was not a concern.

Charcoal treatment dose for each plot is equal.
  Did you average before planting and before harvest lots to get those  
numbers? I think it is best to look at them individually as is  
relative to growth and cation uptake during the season. In the post  
below I was comparing Steiners after first harvest and my after first  
harvest.
Averaging the nitrate for example will be be meaningless as end of  
season was 0 across the board. It might be of interest to look at both  
beginning of season and end of season data at the end of next seasons  
crop.
The paired treatments are replicates, two sets at either end of a 500  
foot seed bed.
If you look at the image posted of the treatment sets you will see the  
plants at the north end fared better. If you want to look at the data  
sets I will send the complete nutrient report offline.
>
>
> Scatter in analyses seems to be about 1 CEC unit, or +/- .5 units  
> around the true value. In tests 1 and 3, with presumably the same  
> weight of Char additions, the coarse char gives a larger CEC, within  
> scatter limits, but Tests 2 and 4 give a lower CEC, within scatter  
> limits. Char size effects may have been eliminated in teh Lab...  
> possibly they pulverized all samples for consistency within their  
> analytical procedure.
>

No pieces larger than a fiberglas window screen were submitted.  
Perhaps though this biased the charcoal content of the sample towards  
the charcoal 1 although charcoal 2 was crushed and had plenty of fines  
in addition to big pieces. I viewed the dose in both as excessive but  
do regret not sizing the Charcoal 2 better. Although I was interested  
to be able to watch root and fungus interaction with the charcoal  
pieces as Larry had done in his tests.
>>> 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?
> It would be very helpful if we had conversion factors so that work  
> reported by different Researchers using different units could be  
> compared.
>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
> If you, as a "good Grower", couldn't see a difference, then there  
> was probably no significant difference.

No - I could see a difference but getting an actual measurement is a  
challenge. As I will explain in detail I changed my project mid- 
planning from container to a field test and had a limited supply of  
plants. Some were damaged by cultivation and deer others were crowded  
by the adjacent Aster. What I wound up doing was picking the best of  
each set after they had been lifted and documented with images. The  
plants were all so nice I did not want to destroy so they went to  
customers.
>
>
> QUESTION: Is it possible that your "control soil" was "adequately  
> good" and that the char additions did not remove any "limits to  
> growth?"

Correct - Beyond the charcoal tests of this project I am studying our  
soil management practices and learning much about soil testing and  
understanding test values. If the charcoal additions have value in  
management of soil nutrition then a pattern might emerge in following  
years as I will be not using additional fertilizer or compost and  
removing all biomass produced including roots. This is a depletion  
regime that is just initiated.
> Would you consider the CEC of the "Control soil" as "below minimum  
> requirements for normal growth", "adequate for normal growth", or  
> "above the level required for normal growth?"

Adequate with a early summer nitrogen supplement as is our practice.

As Ogawa postulates with depletion of organic matter proceeds in this  
test the saprophytes will be excluded and the inorganic carbon habitat  
of charcoal will enhance the propagation of autotrophic and symbiotic   
microorganisms: (ie) free living nitrogen fixing bacteria, Frankia and  
some mycorrhizial fungi < from his UGA presentation>.  Other  
differences in soil respiration and microbial diversity are worthy of  
literature study.

The way I see things in this experiment and the results of Steiners  
work is this is an enrichment culture. If terra preta is the result of  
a process then this first seasons work is the starting point.


>
>>
>> <>
>>
>> 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.
> Thanks very much for your reports. They are very helpful. I look  
> forward to future comment and reports.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Kevin
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org/attachments/20071210/c9c0c029/attachment-0001.html