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

[Sean K. Barry]

Hi Jon,

"... since microbes get 1st priority on soil nutrients ahead of plants."  <- Now that statement makes a great deal of sense.  I think it is a key to what is occurring when charcoal amendments alone to soil, tends to make nitrogen less available for uptake by plants.  More than one source on this list has suggested that charcoal enhances the growth of soil microbe populations.  Some have even come up with using some lab tests to validate this (Dr. Christoph Steiner).  Soil microbes do also use Nitrogen when they grow many of their living structures (As David Yarrow rightly suggests; amino acids, proteins, DNA, and etc.).

I probably will try to do some experiments before I act on any unproven hypothesis in any sort of large scale or commercial manner.  I would never consider that a waste of time.  I think "good science" leads to "sound engineering".  The "I guess, by gosh, by golly crowd" is unsuccessfully trying to sell water-fueled cars on YouTube.com.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVhXrvCCILw <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVhXrvCCILw>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMSUe76PZLQ <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMSUe76PZLQ>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkjB-u15UgI <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkjB-u15UgI>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXzTtm-QwtI <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXzTtm-QwtI>
http://www.overunity.com/<http://www.overunity.com/>
http://www.h2earth.org/main.htm<http://www.h2earth.org/main.htm>

It turns out sometimes, that just a little science can be "bad science", with fruitless outcomes.  Maybe?

Regards,

SKB

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Jon C. Frank<mailto:jon.frank at aglabs.com> 
  To: Terrapreta<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org> 
  Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 12:06 PM
  Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Terra Preta - not just about charcoal in soil


  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
  _______________________________________________
  Terrapreta mailing list
  Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
  http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
  http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
  http://info.bioenergylists.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org/attachments/20071003/b096f39f/attachment.html