[Terrapreta] Terra Preta - not just about charcoal in soil

[Jon C. Frank]

Sean,

The application of charcoal powder created an observable nitrogen deficiency
in corn plants.  Where is the nitrogen?  I am sure it is still there but
unavailable to the plants since microbes get 1st priority on soil nutrients
ahead of plants.  Since corn is a nitrogen loving crop, additional nitrogen
needed to be applied to compensate for the application of the charcoal.

Does charcoal applied to soil cause N to dissipate to the air or cause a
reoccurring loss?  In my opinion no--just a short-time (1-2 years) imbalance
in the C to N ratio.

As far as getting a theory and a test experiment to prove the theory and
then see if it is replicated in different locations sorry the answer is the
same as last post (No Sean I won't waste my time trying to validate or
invalidate the theory).

How about you do it Sean?  I have no interest.

Jon
  -----Original Message-----
  From: terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org
[mailto:terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org]On Behalf Of Sean K. Barry
  Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 8:30 PM
  To: Terrapreta; Jon C. Frank
  Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Terra Preta - not just about charcoal in soil


  Hi Jon,

  I know that observation and experimentation are the keys to advancing any
scientific hypothesis into a scientific theory.  We have two independent
observations of this same phenomenon, Jon!  One from your farmer friend and
another by Larry Williams view on what he saw in his beets.  I think this is
great news!  This could make for a really useful scientific investigation.
The consensus observation is that charcoal amendments alone to soil seems to
reduce nitrogen in the soil.

  Were these observations of actual measured soil nitrogen losses or are
they observations of the effect of nitrogen deficiency in the plants, i.e.
did Larry think the beets looked like they did not get enough nitrogen or
did he see a measured drop in soil nitrogen content?  It might be useful to
make a nutrient assay of some sort on the soils to determine what the soil
nitrogen levels are now.  If there were any un-amended (with charcoal) soil
controls, then they could also be measured for a nitrogen concentration
baseline.  Is it possible that what has occurred is that the charcoal
amendments have made the nitrogen less available to the plants (but it is
still in the soil)?

  Your hypothesis, if I read you correctly, is that the soils are now
nitrogen deficient and this is due to a loss of the equilibrium or natural
balance between nitrogen and carbon concentrations in the soil, caused by
the carbon increase that came with the charcoal?  Would you be willing to
ask any of the soil scientists at your AgLabs if they could propose any
possible mechanisms for this?  Maybe it could be a testable suggestion?
Maybe we could devise an experiment or a test, which we could ask your
farmer friend and/or Larry Williams to perform or let someone perform on
their fields?

  I think that for the development of any theory about how or why charcoal
amendments reduce nitrogen levels or available nitrogen, then it would need
to come by way of an experimental validation of such a proposed mechanism,
with results that would be predictable, and repeated at least once, the same
result from the same test, in two different fields.  The proposed mechanism
would imply some expected results.  Can we see the cause leading to the
effect?

  I could see, certainly, that if measured nitrogen is now deficient in a
fields' soils, which had been solely amended with charcoal, that adding
nitrogen (from any source) would increase the nitrogen concentrations, at
least temporarily.  If your hypothesis is correct, then would you think that
the restored nitrogen concentrations would remain restored?  Maybe the
charcoal causes the nitrogen deficiency and it would remove more nitrogen
over time if more nitrogen were to be added?

  My point is, that consensus "observations" are really just a great
starting point for determining what is occurring here.  What follows is
really the meat of scientific work.  From these observations, can we see the
cause leading to the effect?  If we can, then we are developing a theory for
what is occurring.  If any hypothesis is correct, then some experimental
results should be predictable and these will validate the cause leading to
the effect premise.

  We cannot act on mere "observations" and call it a theory, until we can
expound from those "observations" to predict some expected experimental
results, and then show repeatable, well-documented, reoccurrence of those
experiments and results.

  Before I repeat myself again...

  Regards,

  SKB
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org/attachments/20071003/4991e224/attachment.html