[Terrapreta] Abstract on Charcoal in soil

[Randy Black]

Kevin, 

All forms of carbon are the same! Carbon is an element and if you burn
off all the impurities in any organic material you get carbon. This is
why partial biochar is so important to Terra Preta. The partial biochar
does have many differences based on its parent material. Pine needle
biochar can actually lower the ph in soil where pine wood biochar
increases it. This is due to the acidic oils that are present in pine
needles but not in pine wood. So when you say "It would appear that all
forms of carbon are considered as equal, when this is not necessarily
the case. Indeed , it is likely that carbohydrate carbon, cellulostic
carbon, and charcoal carbon serve very different functions.", it is
different if you are talking about carbon or talking about partial
biochar.

Also the physical structure of the char will be different depending on
parent material. Wood has a lot of pores due to the cell structure
inherent in the wood but I have not seen anything on the cell structure
of say grass, leaves, or any organic material. I have also noticed the
difference is cell structure of my charcoal when I use dry fresh wood
versus rotten older wood. The rotten older wood breaks down much easier
and seems to hare larger pores.

Randy Black
-----Original Message-----
From: terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org
[mailto:terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of
terrapreta-request at bioenergylists.org
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 11:00 AM
To: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
Subject: Terrapreta Digest, Vol 4, Issue 140

Send Terrapreta mailing list submissions to
	terrapreta at bioenergylists.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/

or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	terrapreta-request at bioenergylists.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	terrapreta-owner at bioenergylists.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Terrapreta digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Abstract on Charcoal in soil (Kevin Chisholm)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 08:24:11 -0300
From: Kevin Chisholm <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Abstract on Charcoal in soil
To: Michael Bailes <michaelangelica at gmail.com>
Cc: terrapreta <terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
Message-ID: <4649985B.2040703 at ca.inter.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed

Dear Michael

I might be missing something, but doesn't this test seem to test the 
benefits of soil nutrients rather than the benefits of Terra Preta?

Wouldn't these tests have been more enlightening if a more reasonable 
soil base had been chosen?

It would appear that all forms of carbon are considered as equal, when 
this is not necessarily the case. Indeed , it is likely that 
carbohydrate carbon, cellulostic carbon, and charcoal carbon serve very 
different functions.

Best wishes,

Kevin



Michael Bailes wrote:
> Abstract  Application of organic fertilizers and charcoal increase
nutrient
> stocks in the rooting zone of crops, reduce nutrient leaching and thus
> improve crop production on acid and highly weathered tropical soils.
In a
> field trial near Manaus (Brazil) 15 different amendment combinations
based
> on equal amounts of carbon (C) applied through chicken manure (CM), 
> compost,
> charcoal, and forest litter were tested during four cropping cycles
with
> rice (*Oryza sativa* L.) and sorghum (*Sorghum bicolor* L.) in five
> replicates. CM amendments resulted in the highest (*P* < 0.05)
cumulative
> crop yield (12.4 Mg ha?1) over four seasons. Most importantly, surface
soil
> pH, phosphorus (P), calcium (Ca), and magnesium (Mg) were
significantly
> enhanced by CM. A single compost application produced fourfold more
grain
> yield (*P* < 0.05) than plots mineral fertilized in split
applications.
> Charcoal significantly improved plant growth and doubled grain
production
> if fertilized with NPK in comparison to the NPK-fertilizer without
charcoal
> (*P* < 0.05). The higher yields caused a significantly greater
nutrient
> export in charcoal-amended fields, but available nutrients did not
decrease
> to the same extent as on just mineral fertilized plots. Exchangeable
soil
> aluminum (Al) was further reduced if mineral fertilizer was applied
with
> charcoal (from 4.7 to 0 mg kg?1). The resilience of soil organic
matter
> (SOM) in charcoal amended plots (8 and 4% soil C loss, mineral 
> fertilized or
> not fertilized, respectively) indicates the refractory nature of 
> charcoal in
> comparison to SOM losses over 20 months in CM (27%), compost amended
(27%),
> and control plots (25% loss).
> http://www.springerlink.com/content/6655755v113437g3/
> Feb 2007
> Christoph Steiner1 [image: Contact
>
Information]<http://www.springerlink.com/content/6655755v113437g3/#Conta
ctOfAuthor1>, 
> 
> Wenceslau G. Teixeira2, Johannes Lehmann3, Thomas Nehls1,
> Jeferson Luis Vasconcelos de Mac?do2, Winfried E. H. Blum4 and
Wolfgang 
> Zech
> 1
> 
> Does this article abstract say that Charcoal kept SOM in the soil for
> longer?
> 
> 
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Terrapreta mailing list
> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
>
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/




------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Terrapreta mailing list
Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/


End of Terrapreta Digest, Vol 4, Issue 140
******************************************